(1.) This writ application has been filed with a prayer to quash annexuro-4 and 4/1 which are summons issued to the accused (1) Anil D. Ambani son of late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, Maker Chambers IV, Third Floor 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (2) Mukesh D. Ambani son of late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, Maker Chambers IV, Third Floor 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, Managing Deputy Director, Reliance India Ltd. Company, by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna and also for quashing annexure-6 the order dated 27.1.2006 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna whereby the prayer of the petitioners for recalling the summons which according to the petitioners was erroneous was refused.
(2.) In the fact of the case it appears that vide order dated 1.11.04 the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in complaint case no. 2059(C)/2004 took cognisance of the offence under Sections 419, 420, 468, 469/34 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons in complaint case no. 2059(C)/2004 and the accused no. 2 arrayed in the complaint petition was Reliance India Ltd. Company through Managing Director, Maker Chambers, 4th Floor, 22 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 (the names of Anil Ambani and Mukesh Ambani were mentioned as the Managing Director of the Company). After taking cognisance, of the offence while issuing summons with respect to the accused no. 2(1) i.e. Reliance India Ltd. Company which is a corporate body or a juristic person, the learned Magistrate has issued summons in the form of annexure-4 and 4/1.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a corporate body or juristic person is accused in a criminal case the summons are required to be issued in the name of juristic person only. The learned counsel also submits that since the summons have been issued to the two petitioners in their private and individual capacity it cannot be allowed to stand as such. The learned counsel refers to Sec. 63 of the Crimial P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which reads as follows: