Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
(2.) IN this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No. 509 of 2007 including the order dated 04.01.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 453, 384, 323, 341, 504, 506, 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint case was filed by the complainant - opposite party No. 2 in which it was stated that the complainant is the resident of quarters No. L 4/148, Straight Mile Road, Sidhgora, Jamshedpur and that he is a sub -contractor and is residing at the aforesaid address with his family members since the last 20 years. It has been alleged that on 20.03.2007, a notice was issued from the office of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur to the complainant regarding pendency of B.P.L.E. Case No. 8 of 2007 and it was mentioned that on 10.04.2007, the complainant was to appear either in person or through his counsel in the said case. It has been alleged further that on 30 -31st March 2007 at about 2:30 A.M., accused Nos. 1 to 3 along with 15 -20 persons came to his residence armed with lathi and hockey sticks and they have forcibly taken away the household articles of the complainant and had damaged the wall of the house of the complainant and has also beaten the complainant's brother. It has further been alleged that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 disclosed that they were merely complying the orders of the accused Nos. 4 and 5. After the complaint case was filed, an inquiry was conducted and on 04.01.2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur was pleased to pass an order by which cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 453, 384, 323, 341, 504, 506, 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order dated 04.01.2008 has been passed in a mechanical manner and there is no application of independent judicial mind by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are the employees of the Security Department of JUSCO Ltd., whereas the petitioner No. 4 is the head of the Estate Division of TISCO Ltd. and the petitioner No. 5 was the Managing Director of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted while referring to the application filed on behalf of the complainant - opposite party No. 2 that, the B.P.L.E. proceeding in which he has stated that without giving any notice, the house for which the encroachment case was instituted was demolished by the police with the aid of Magistrate on 15.04.2007 whereas in the complaint petition, the date of demolition has been mentioned as 30 -31st March 2007 at about 2:30 A.M. He has also drawn my attention to the order dated 15.05.2007 passed in B.P.L.E. proceeding by the learned S.D.M., Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur in which it was held that the land in question is a government land which had been given to TISCO Ltd. on lease and the complainant - opposite party No. 2 had encroached upon the said land. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition is taken to be true, the same has been levelled against the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and so far as petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 are concerned, they cannot be fastened with vicarious liability, as in criminal law, there is no concept of vicarious liability. He has also referred to the judgment in the cases of "Anjani Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and anr." reported in : (2008) 5 SCC 248, "All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Vs. Dhanesh Badamal Jain & anr." reported in : (2008) 1 JLJR 51(SC) , "Munivel Vs. State of Tamil Nadu" reported in : (2006) 3 Eastern Criminal Cases 62 (SC), "S.K. Alagh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors." : (2008) 5 SCC 662 and "Maksud Saiyed Syed Vs. State of Gujarat" reported in : (2008) 5 SCC 668.;