1 2025:CGHC:3699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1205 of 2018 J.P. Lath S/o Late Subhkaran Das Lath Aged About 78 Years Monnel House 11, Masjid Moth, Gk-Ii, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through- Its Regional Officer, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Regional Office, T.V. Tower, Raod, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Monnet Ispat @ Energy Limited A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Palnt At Naharpali, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh........Through Its Factory Manager, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 21.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ayush Mahiswar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.3.2018 passed by the court of 2nd Additional Session Judge, Raigarh, in Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2017 in the interest of justice; (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the Petitioner in complaint Case no. 411 of 2011 pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class-Raigarh in the interest of justice. (iii) Pass such pass pass such further and other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the Petitioner herein is the president and director of a company namely Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited (proforma Respondent No.2), a limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged into the business of production of steel and power generation. Vide board resolution dated 23.4.2007, one Shri Baikunthnath Mangraj was duly authorized by the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 1 company to look after the affairs of the company with respect to the environment issues. The Respondent No. 1 herein is regional officer of State Pollution Control Board constituted by the State 3 Government of Chhattisgarh under section 4 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and is therefore, a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal having its principal office at Raipur (C.G.) and regional office at Raigarh also. The Respondent is the complainant in the said complaint case. On 20.7.2007, the Respondent No.1 herein as the complainant filed a criminal complaint in accordance with section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh (C.G.) against the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 company in respect of offences punishable under Section read with 37 read with Section 40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 44 read with Section 47 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under section 15 and 16 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 read with Section 34 of IPC. On 29.11.2007, the Petitioner herein filed an application under Section 305 of Cr.P.C. before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh for deleting his name from the array of accused persons. In the said application it was stated that allegation made in the complaint filed by the Respondent herein was with respect to discharge of fugitive dust and the same was made against the Respondent No. 2 company. In the application it was also stated that since accused Company is being duly represented by senior officer of the company who was looking after the affairs of the environment 4 issues and therefore his name may be deleted. It is further relevant to mention that criminal complaint filed under Section 37 and 40 of Act, does not disclose any offence against the petitioner and no specific averment or allegation has been made against the petitioner in the complaint. Vide order dated 11.2.2008, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, allowed the said application and deleted the name of the petitioner herein from the array of accused persons on the ground that since the complaint had been filed with respect to the act of the Respondent no.2 company and its representative is already appearing in the matter and therefore it would be in the interest of justice to delete the name of the petitioner and Senior officer of the company who is looking after the affairs of the company in respect of environment matters shall be substituted. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent No.1 preferred a revision application under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before the court of Sessions Judge, Raigarh. Vide order dated 13.2.2015, the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Raigarh allowed the said criminal revision preferred by the Respondent No. 1 and remanded the matter back to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh for fresh consideration after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties. After remand, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, passed an order on 4.10.2017, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 305 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 5 Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.10.2017, the petitioner herein preferred a criminal revision application under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before the Revisional Court. Vide impugned order dated 14.3.2018, the learned revisional court below rejected the said criminal revision and confirmed the order dated 4.10.2017 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 411 of 2011. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the Petitioner prefers, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is erroneous, perverse against the facts and law and thus the same is liable to be set aside. There is no allegation much less even a whisper in the complaint to the effect either that the alleged offences had been committed with the consent or connivance of the Petitioner or that the alleged offences were attributable to any neglect on the part of the Petitioner. Not only the very initiation of the criminal proceeding registered as Criminal Case No. 411 of 2011 but its further continuance against the Petitioner would tantamount to mockery of justice as well as the process of court. The Petitioner, therefore, submits that this is an eminently fit case where the Hon'ble Court should invoke its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by quashing the impugned order. The court below have failed to appreciate that in the said application filed under Section 305 of Cr.P.C. it was clearly stated that allegation made in the complaint filed by the Respondent herein was with respect to discharge of fugitive dust 6 and the same was made against the Respondent No. 2 company. In the application it was also stated that since Accused Company is being duly represented by senior officer of the company who was looking after the affairs of the environment issues and therefore his name may be deleted. It is further relevant to mention that criminal complaint filed under Section 37 and 40 of Act, does not disclose any offence against the petitioner and no specific averment or allegation has been made against the petitioner in the complaint. That the learned court below have rejected the said application without appreciating the provisions of 305 of Cr.P.C. and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside. From a bare perusal of Section 40 of the 1981 Act and Section 47 of the 1974 Act, it would be clear that the vicarious liability of a person for being prosecuted for an offence punishable under the 1981 Act and 1974 Act and committed by a company which provides for fastening a vicarious liability on any person, including a director of the company there should be a clear, unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal averment in the complaint Detailing out his respective role in commission of alleged offence. A bare perusal of the complaint as well as accompanying documents shows that the Petitioner has been arraigned as the accused person by simply describing them as President and Director of the Respondent No. 2 Company, both in cause title as well as in para 4 of the Complaint. It is well settled law that the complaint under Section 37 and 40 of the 1981 Act and under 7 Section 44 and 47 of the 1974 Act, would not be maintainable in the absence of any specific allegation against the directors of the company. It is submitted that in the present case no averments has been made in the complaint with regard to the role played by the Petitioner in the alleged offence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that the Respondent No. 1 herein was regional officer of State Pollution Control Board constituted by the State Government of Chhattisgarh under section 4 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and is therefore, was a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal having its principal office at Raipur (C.G.) and regional office at Raigarh also and has thus filed a criminal complaint in accordance with section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh (C.G.) against the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 company in respect of offences punishable under Section read with 37 read with Section 40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 44 read with Section 47 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under section 15 and 16 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 read with Section 34 of IPC. He further submits that both the trial Court and revisional Court after considering all the aspects of the matter has 8 rightly rejected the application and revision filed by the petitioner herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 9 (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 10 (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would 11 naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade 12 a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the 13 material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 9. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a 14 complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 10. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the respondent No. 2 i.e. M/s Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited the company in which petitioner was working has already been acquitted in the case in question and 15 further has also been sold to another firm. Further, bare perusal of Section 40 of the 1981 Act and Section 47 of the 1974 Act, it is clear that the vicarious liability of a person, including a director of the company there should be a clear, unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal averment in the complaint Detailing out his respective role in commission of alleged offence. A perusal of the complaint as well as accompanying documents shows that the Petitioner has been arraigned as the accused person by simply describing them as President and Director of the Respondent No. 2 Company, both in cause title as well as in the Complaint. It is well settled law that the complaint under Section 37 and 40 of the 1981 Act and under Section 44 and 47 of the 1974 Act, would not be maintainable in the absence of any specific allegation against the directors of the company and further in the present case, no averments has been made in the complaint with regard to the role played by the petitioner in the alleged offence. Hence, the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and do not constitute a cognizable offence. 12. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the complaint are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and make out a case against the petitioner herein. 16 13. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class- Raigarh arising out of order dated 14.03.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.113/2017 passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 14. The petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal