VIKAS KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Somali Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Irshad, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the first information report (for short 'F.I.R.') of Chattauni P. S. Case No.248 of 2019 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 387, 382, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Ms. Somali Acharya, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the F.I.R. in question has been instituted without complying to the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 2015 SC 1758, which is mandatory for referring any complaint case under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). She has further contended that the prosecution of the petitioners in the present case is bad due to non-impleadment of the Tata Motors Finance Limited (for short 'Company') as a party. According to her, when the company has not been arrayed as a party, the petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the company. She urged that the prosecution of the petitioners is in contravention of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and others, (2009) 1 SCC 516. She has further contended that since the petitioners were discharging their obligations as employees of the company, their prosecution in the present case is apparently in contravention of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Charanjit Singh Chadha and others vs. Sudhir Mehra, A.I.R. 2001 SC 3721.