IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52516 of 2007 1. JAI SHANKAR SINGH. 2. Uday Singh, both are sons of Gajadhar Singh. 3. Prakash Singh. 4. Sone Singh. 5. Rajiv Singh. Petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are sons of Haridwar Singh All resident of Muhalla-Kila Sasaram, Police Station- Sasaram, District-Rohtas. ……Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Balramji Agrawal, Son of Late Awadh Bihari Agrawal, Resident of Mahajan Toli, Police Station-Sasaram, District-Rohtas. …..Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Adv. For the State : Sri Chaubey Jawahar, A.P.P. ----------- 03. 09.04.2010 The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 28.06.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohtas at Sasaram in complaint case No. 413 of 2007 (Tr. No. 2397 of 2007) by which he has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also quashing of the order dated 18.07.2007 by which the Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Revision No. 152 of 2007 has disposed off their applications filed against the order of cognizance. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2, Balramji Agarwal is that he was closely associated - 2 - with Sardar Gajadhar Singh and his son Haridwar Singh and there were many business dealings between the two. Due to the said good relations between them, on the asking of Sardar Gajadhar Singh and Sardar Haridwar Singh the complainant is said to have lent them a sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- in all which they never returned and when he went for the refund of the same they refused to do so. On the last occasion, by order dated 06.02.2009 notices were issued to the Opposite Party No. 2 but despite service of notices the Opposite Party No. 2 has chosen not to appear before this Court and oppose the present application. From the bare perusal of the complaint, I find that the petitioners, apart from having been named in the column of accused have been alleged no role whatsoever. In fact their names do not find mention in the entire body of the complaint. It is a well settled principle of law that in cases of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code there can be no question of vicarious liability and the complainant has to allege the specific role of each accused person. Since the complainant has not - 3 - done so in the present case, I am of the view that the continuance of the complaint with regard to the petitioners herein is an abuse of the process of the Court and is fit to be quashed. In view of such, I allow this application and quash the order dated 28.06.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohtas at Sasaram in complaint case No. 413 of 2007 (Tr. No. 2397 of 2007) with regard to the present petitioners and also quash the order dated 18.07.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Revision No. 152 of 2007. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)