( 2026:JHHC:3868 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2421 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2421 of 2023 ------ Madan Mohan Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Tejnarayan Singh, R/o Prabhu Dwar, Nirala Path, Baridih Basti, P.O. & P.S.-Baridih, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jitendra Prasad Singh, S/o Girja Prasad, working as Regional Officer-Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, having office at MB/15, New Housing Colony, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, District-Seraikella Kharsawan. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Samit Kr. Lall, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2, but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.571 of 2023 including the order taking cognizance dated 15.05.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial ( 2026:JHHC:3868 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2421 of 2023 Magistrate, Seraikella whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 against the petitioner. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Secretary of M/s Sitwando Devi Mahila Kalyan Sansthan; indulged in construction of a medical college and hospital as a unit of the said Sansthan (organisation) in the name and style of Netaji Subhash Medical College & Hospital in the year 2022, in contravention and without complying with the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Regional Officer-Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board being a public servant under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 21 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 filed a complaint alleging commission of the said offence of the petitioner indulging in activities of new projects or expansion of modernization of existing projects mentioned in the schedule to the notification. The said new project of construction of proposed 350 bedded hospital was alleged to be constructed, without any clearance for starting the same. 5. On the basis of the said complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and taken cognizance of the said offence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.N. Verma vs. The State ( 2026:JHHC:3868 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2421 of 2023 of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2014) 4 SCC 282 and submits that in the facts of that case which involves offence under the penal provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 where “agent” has an extended meaning, but it was nobody’s case that the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was appointed as an agent of any mine, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of that case went on to hold that the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India cannot be a person to be held vicariously responsible for the lapse that occurred in the mine resulting in a fatal accident. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajiv Khurana reported in (2010) 11 SCC 469 and submits that in the facts of that case, again in a case of vicarious liability as envisaged under the penal provision of Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the company, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that it is imperative to specifically aver in the complaint that the accused was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. It is next submitted that even though M/s Sitwando Devi Mahila Kalyan Sansthan was not a company rather it was a trust and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not have any provision of vicarious liability, yet the ratio of that judgment is applicable to the facts of this case also and apart from the fact that the petitioner is the Secretary of the said trust, there is no other averment for saddling the ( 2026:JHHC:3868 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2421 of 2023 petitioner with any vicarious liability, therefore, this complaint is bad in law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Another vs. Datar Switchgear Limited & Others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 479 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India again reiterated the trite law that wherever by a legal fiction, the principle of vicarious liability is attracted and a person who is otherwise not personally involved in the commission of an offence is made liable for the same, it has to be specifically provided in the statute concerned. It is then submitted that since it has not been mentioned that the petitioner is not liable for any vicarious liability, still the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has passed summoning order against the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that there are several other office bearers of M/s Sitwando Devi Mahila Kalyan Sansthan to look after its day to day affairs and nowhere in the complaint, it has been alleged that the petitioner was responsible person for construction of the hospital or that he was entrusted with the work of looking after/carrying out the construction of the hospital by the said trust. 10. Drawing attention of this Court to the Annexure-3, Page-56 of the brief, it is submitted that the environmental clearance has been granted in favour of the petitioner on 04.05.2023, but the project activity of building ( 2026:JHHC:3868 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2421 of 2023 and construction projects for the proposed 350 bedded hospital of M/s Netaji Subhash Medical College & Hospital was started prior to the date of environmental clearance, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 11. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that unlike the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this case does not involve any vicarious liability. It is next submitted that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the key person of the trust- which indulged in the building construction activity for a medical college without environmental clearance starting from the year 2022; which is fortified from the fact that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that subsequently much after starting of construction of the building for the said 350 bedded hospital on 04.05.2023, the petitioner himself in his own name has obtained environmental clearance from the competent authority but that will not obliterate the offence committed by the petitioner prior to obtaining the said environmental clearance starting from the year 2022. Hence, it is submitted that there is absolutely no illegality committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella for having taken cognizance of the offence. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is ( 2026:JHHC:3868 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.2421 of 2023 pertinent to mention here that unlike the provisions of Mines Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act; which provides for vicarious liability and the judgments relied upon by the petitioner relates to the offences under the said statutes, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 do not envisage any vicarious liability. There is direct and specific allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner in capacity of the Secretary of the said trust was carrying out construction of the 350 bedded hospital starting from the year 2022 and it is not even the case of the petitioner that he was not supposed to obtain environmental clearance rather it is the admission on the part of the petitioner that environmental clearance as is required for carrying out the construction of the 350 bedded medical college & hospital and admittedly, the petitioner in his own name has obtained the environmental clearance certificate for the same. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to blow hot and cold in the same breath, by one hand taking the plea that he is no way responsible for the activities of the trust in constructing the 350 bedded hospital, while at the same time taking the diametrically opposite plea that he is the person who is in personal capacity has obtained the environmental clearance for construction of the said 350 bedded hospitals. 13. Under such circumstances and in view of the direct and specific allegations against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the judgements relied upon by the petitioner as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment being related to the penal provision of law having vicarious liability, has no applicability to the ( 2026:JHHC:3868 ) 7 Cr. M.P. No.2421 of 2023 provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio of those judgments is not applicable to the facts of this case. 14. In view of the discussions made above since, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 15. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of February, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 24/02/2026