JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in connection with Complaint Case No.759 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 418, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons of the said case including the petitioner. 3. The allegation made by the complainant is that the complainant purchased one J.C.B. after entering into an agreement with Shriram Equipment Finance Limited which is also known as Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited upon paying a down payment of Rs.3,70,000/- by cash and the remaining amount of Rs.18,34,000/- was financed by the said finance company but the finance company did not provide the Form-21 and 22 according its consent for registration of the vehicle and subsequently because of non-payment of the installment dues, the vehicle of the complainant has been taken away by the said company. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Rajmahal has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 418, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anup Sarmah vs. Bhola Nath Sharma & Another reported in (2013) 1 SCC 400 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon its own judgment in the case of Charanjit Singh Chada vs. Sudhir Mehra reported in (2001) 7 SCC 417 wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that recovery of possession of a vehicle by the financier owner as per terms of the hire-purchase agreement, does not amount to a criminal offence. It is next submitted that in this case, the vehicle in question was recovered in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, so, at best a civil dispute arises but a cloak of criminal case has been given by the complainant only for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. 5. It is next submitted that in this case, the vehicle in question was recovered in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, so, at best a civil dispute arises but a cloak of criminal case has been given by the complainant only for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Limited & Others reported in (2022) 15 SCC 430 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that since summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, the Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gagan Banga vs. Samit Mandal & Another passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.774 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took note of its own judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Another vs. State of W.B. & Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceedings being abuse of law in a purely civil financial dispute and being a case of forum shopping. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is now the Executive Vice Chairman of Shriram Finance Company Limited and he was the erstwhile Managing Director of M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is now the Executive Vice Chairman of Shriram Finance Company Limited and he was the erstwhile Managing Director of M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of indulging in any act personally, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate ought not have taken cognizance of the offence in respect of the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code, in the absence of any provision of vicarious liability in the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still neither the offence punishable under Section 418 nor the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 8. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the since admittedly the petitioner was the Managing Director of the Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, hence, he is squarely responsible for the acts of the said company. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that a Managing Director or the other Directors of the company cannot be held liable for the acts of the company unless any specific role played by them in the transaction involving the offence; and has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 43 of the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609 10. To the same effect is the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Dutt and Others vs. State Haryana and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 32 , paragraph-11 of which reads as under:- “11. To the same effect is the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Dutt and Others vs. State Haryana and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 32 , paragraph-11 of which reads as under:- “11. It appears that the Courts below proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the three appellants herein being responsible officers of the company are liable for the alleged offence. While a company may be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees, the liability of its directors is not automatic. It depends on specific circumstances, particularly the interplay between the director's personal actions and the company's responsibilities. A director may be vicariously liable only if the company itself is liable in the first place and if such director personally acted in a manner that directly connects their conduct to the company's liability. Mere authorization of an act at the behest of the company or the exercise of a supervisory role over certain actions or activities of the company is not enough to render a director vicariously liable. There must exist something to show that such actions of the director stemmed from their personal involvement and arose from actions or conduct falling outside the scope of its routine corporate duties. Thus, where the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect. There has to be a specific act attributed to the director or any other person allegedly in control and management of the company, to the effect that such a person was responsible for the acts committed by or on behalf of the company. (Emphasis supplied) 10.1. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of being involved in any allegations made in the complaint in his personal capacity. It is needless to mention that the Indian Penal Code do not provide for any vicarious liability. (Emphasis supplied) 10.1. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of being involved in any allegations made in the complaint in his personal capacity. It is needless to mention that the Indian Penal Code do not provide for any vicarious liability. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, it is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in connection with Complaint Case No.759 of 2022, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in connection with Complaint Case No.759 of 2022, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above. 12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 13. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No.14604 of 2025 stands dispose of being infructuous.