2021 (10) TMI 49 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court emphasizes prima facie evidence in dismissing summoning order

Ravindranatha Bajpe Versus Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. & Others Etc.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court and Sessions Court's decision to quash the Magistrate's order summoning accused nos. 1 to 8 due to insufficient ... Trespassing of scheduled properties - summon order - vicarious liability of executives - offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC - HELD THAT:- 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. From the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing the process against the respondents herein – accused nos. 1 to 8, there does not appear that the learned 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, as observed hereinabove, there are specific allegations and averments against them with respect to their individual role - the High Court has rightly dismissed the revision applications and has rightly confirmed the order passed by the learned Sessions Court quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against respondent nos. 1 to 8 herein – original accused nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC. The present appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the High Court and Sessions Court's decision to quash the Magistrate's order summoning accused nos. 1 to 8.2. Examination of whether a prima facie case was established against accused nos. 1 to 8.3. Consideration of vicarious liability of corporate executives in criminal matters.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the High Court and Sessions Court's Decision to Quash the Magistrate's Order Summoning Accused Nos. 1 to 8:The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court of Karnataka's decision, which upheld the Sessions Court's order quashing the Magistrate's summons against accused nos. 1 to 8. The original complainant had filed a private complaint alleging offenses under Sections 406, 418, 420, 427, 447, 506, and 120B read with Section 34 IPC, claiming that the accused had trespassed on his property, demolished a boundary wall, and caused significant damage. The Judicial Magistrate initially directed to register the case against all accused. However, the Sessions Court quashed the order against accused nos. 1 to 8, and the High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court examined whether this quashing was justified.2. Examination of Whether a Prima Facie Case Was Established Against Accused Nos. 1 to 8:The complainant argued that the learned Magistrate had issued the summons after examining the evidence and that the Sessions Court erred in setting aside this order. The Supreme Court noted that the complaint contained general allegations without specific details about the involvement of accused nos. 1 to 8, who were corporate executives stationed in Hyderabad and not present at the site. The Court emphasized that at the stage of summoning, a prima facie case should be established based on specific allegations and evidence. The Court found that the complaint lacked specific allegations and roles attributed to accused nos. 1 to 8, making the Magistrate's order unsustainable.3. Consideration of Vicarious Liability of Corporate Executives in Criminal Matters:The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that vicarious liability in criminal law requires specific statutory provisions or clear evidence of individual involvement. The Court referred to precedents, including *Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation* and *GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited*, which held that corporate executives cannot be held vicariously liable without specific allegations and evidence of their active role and criminal intent. The Court emphasized that summoning corporate executives is a serious matter and cannot be done based on general or vague allegations.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court and Sessions Court were correct in quashing the Magistrate's order summoning accused nos. 1 to 8 due to the lack of specific allegations and evidence. The Court dismissed the appeals, allowing the complaint to proceed against the remaining accused (nos. 9 to 13) on its own merits. The judgment underscores the necessity for specific and detailed allegations when seeking to summon corporate executives in criminal cases.