Criminal Law – Vicarious liability – Allegation that the accused-respondents with the common intention of laying pipeline beneath the properties belonging to the complainant, committed criminal trespass into the properties and demolished stone compound wall and also cut and destroyed about 100 trees – Magistrate issued process against respondents-accused nos.1 to
8 for offences punishable u/ss.427, 447, 506 and 120B r/w s.34 IPC – Sessions Court set aside the order of Magistrate – High Court confirmed the order of Sessions Court – Challenge to – Held: Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter – Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course – From the order passed by the Magistrate issuing the process against the respondents-accused nos. 1 to 8, there does not appear that the Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction about a prima facie case against respondent nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 – Merely because respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 7 & 8 were the Chairman/Managing Director/ Executive Director/ Deputy General Manager/Planner & Executor, automatically they cannot be held vicariously liable, unless, there were specific allegations and averments against them with respect to their individual role – On facts, High Court rightly dismissed the revision applications and rightly confirmed the order passed by the Sessions Court quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate issuing process against respondent nos.
1 to 8-original accused nos. 1 to 8.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It was not even the case on behalf of the complainant that at the time when the compound wall was demolished and trees were cut, accused nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 were present. Except the bald statement that accused nos. 2 to
5 and 7 & 8 have conspired with common intention to lay the pipeline within the schedule properties belonging to the complainant, without any lawful authority and right whatsoever and in furtherance they have committed to trespass into the schedule properties of the complainant and demolished the compound wall, there are no other allegations that at that time they were present. Accused nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8 are stationed at Hyderabad. There are no further allegations that at the command of A2 to A5 and A7 & A8, the demolition of the compound wall has taken place. All of them are arrayed as an accused as Chairman, Managing Director, Deputy General Manager (Civil & Env.), Planner & Executor, Chairman and Executive Director respectively. Therefore, as such, in absence of any specific allegations and the specific role attributed to them, the Magistrate was not justified in issuing process against accused nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.[Para 7.1][277C-F]
2.1. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. [Para 8.2][279-C-D]
2.2. In the order issuing summons, the Magistrate has to record his satisfaction about a prima facie case against the accused who are Managing Director, the Company Secretary and the Directors of the Company and the role played by them in their respective capacities which is sine qua non for initiating criminal proceedings against them. Looking to the averments and the allegations in the complaint, there are no specific allegations and/or averments with respect to role played by them in their capacity as Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director, Deputy General Manager and Planner & Executor. Merely because they are Chairman, Managing Director/Executive Director and/or Deputy General Manager and/or Planner/Supervisor of A1 & A6, without any specific role attributed and the role played by them in their capacity, they cannot be arrayed as an accused, more particularly they cannot be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by A1 & A6. [Para 8.3][279-H; 280-A-C]
2.3. From the order passed by the Magistrate issuing the process against the respondents herein – accused nos. 1 to 8, there does not appear that the Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction about a prima facie case against respondent nos. 2 to 5 and 7 & 8. Merely because respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 7 &
8 are the Chairman/Managing Director/ Executive Director/Deputy General Manager/Planner & Executor, automatically they cannot be held vicariously liable, unless, there are specific allegations and averments against them with respect to their individual role. Under the circumstances, the High Court has rightly dismissed the revision applications and has rightly confirmed the order passed by the Sessions Court quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate issuing process against respondent nos. 1 to 8– original accused nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC. [Para 9][280-C-F]
3. The Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint against original accused nos. 9 to 13 on its own merits, in accordance with law. [Para 10][280-G]
GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 505 : [2013] 5 SCR 276 ; Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015)
4 SCC 609 : [2015] 1 SCR 377 ; Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 : [2007] 9 SCR 1113 ; and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR
12 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.