Mr. V.P. Tripathy v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- ----- For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. ----- 07/13.07.2023 Heard Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State.

Sufficient opportunity was provided to the State for filing the counter affidavit and in spite of that the counter has not been filed as yet.

Since the matter is of the year 2013, the petition is being heard on merit in absence of any counter affidavit of the State.

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2010 in connection with C/3 Case No.23/2009 for the offences under Section 26, 33 and 63(C) of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Porahat at Chaibasa.

On the written report of the Forest Range Officer, Songra Forest Range, Chakradharpur, dated 22.11.2009, the complaint case was filed alleging therein that the patrolling party of forest officials during patrol on

21.11.2009 found that in Songra 6 Reserved Forest and D.P.F. 13, some people were illegally digging trenches and were doing work of Cable Wire Joint closure and on the same spot they broke the boundary pillar and constructed one concrete pillar in the name of OFC Bharti. On the allegation 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2128 of 2013 of joining cable wire and construction their own pillar by demolishing concrete pillar Ajay Kumar Singh, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Manish Kumar Singh and Rajesh Das were arrested and they gave confessional statement. In their statement, they stated that they were doing the alleged work under the direction of Sri Rakesh Prasad, Manager Bharti Airtel Ltd., Sri N. Yakudi, Circle Head, Bihar Jharkhand and Sri V.P. Tripathy, Vice President, Bharti Airtel Ltd., Okhala Industrial Area, New Delhi. One accused Sri Sanjay Methi flee from the spot on a motorcycle.

Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredient under Section 26, 33 and 63(C) of the Indian Forest Act is not made out. He further submits that at that time, the petitioner was posted as Vice President of Bharti Airtel Ltd. He further submits that there is no role of the petitioner for the allegations made in the complaint, however the case has been falsely filed against the petitioner and the learned court has taken cognizance without following due procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. He also submits that so far as rest of the accused are concerned, they have already obtained bail and they are facing trial.

Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the statement of some of the accused person, it has been disclosed that on the direction of this petitioner, the work was being carried out and, therefore, the complaint case has been filed.

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the petitioner was posted as the Vice President of Bharti Airtel Ltd at New Delhi. If such allegations are there and the petitioner was residing outside the jurisdiction of the learned court where the matter was pending, it was incumbent upon the learned court to first make out enquiry under Section 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2128 of 2013 202 Cr.P.C., which is lacking in the case in hand.

The Court further finds that the said Company is not made an accused and vicarious liability cannot be fastened upon any employee of the Company when the Company is not made an accused. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others; [(2009) 1 SCC 516].

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis and considering that the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been made before taking cognizance and further the Company is not made an accused and the petitioner was posted as the Vice President of the Bharti Aitrel, Ltd. at New Delhi, vicarious liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Accordingly, so far as this petitioner is concerned, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2010 in connection with C/3 Case No.23/2009, pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Porahat at Chaibasa is quashed.

It is made clear that so far as other accused persons are concerned, this Court has not interfered with and against them, the case is kept intact.

Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)