Cognizance against a person as company director is unsustainable when the person never held that directorship.

An FIR, being Danguaposi Rail P.S. Case No. 10 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 100 of 2008, was registered in relation to receipt of an iron ore rack at a railway station against, inter alia, M/s Anandita Traders & Investment Limited, M/s Maa Chhinnmastika Sponge Iron & Private Limited, and the concerned owners/directors

After investigation, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against Pradeep Bhardwaj @ Pradeep Belthariya, described as the then Director of M/s Maa Chhinnmastika Sponge Iron & Private Limited

By order dated 15 March 2024, the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Chakradharpur, took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to Asha Devi on the premise that she was a Director of M/s Maa Chhinnmastika Sponge Iron & Private Limited

Asha Devi challenged that order and the consequential proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, asserting that she had never been a director of that company and that the record contained no material establishing such directorship

The State and the Union of India accepted that she was not a director of the said company

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance and summoning order against the petitioner when she was never a director of the company allegedly connected with the offences?

Whether the criminal proceedings in Danguaposi Rail P.S. Case No. 10 of 2008 should be quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice

The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, concerning cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and criminal conspiracy respectively

The governing principle applied was that cognizance and issuance of summons must be founded on legally sustainable material connecting the accused with the alleged offence; proceedings cannot continue against a person on the basis of an erroneous or factually unsupported attribution of an office in a company

The Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons against the petitioner specifically in her alleged capacity as a director of M/s Maa Chhinnmastika Sponge Iron & Private Limited

However, the undisputed record established that Asha Devi had never held that position, and both the State and the Union of India accepted that fact

Since the foundational factual premise for implicating her was incorrect, there was no sustainable basis for taking cognizance or issuing summons against her for the alleged offences.

The High Court therefore held that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would not be legally sustainable

The entire criminal proceedings arising out of Danguaposi Rail P.S. Case No. 10 of 2008 were quashed qua Asha Devi only.

The remaining portion of the Magistrate’s order and the proceedings against the other accused were expressly left intact