By Rishika Sinha
The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, presided over by Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, delivered its order on 1 February 2023 in Cr.M.P. No. 1826 of 2021, quashing the criminal proceedings against Sh. Venkatram Mamillapalle, CEO and MD of Renault India Pvt. Ltd. The case arose from a complaint filed by Mrs Rachna Kumari, who alleged that she was supplied a Renault Duster RXS 85PS BSIV instead of the ordered Duster RXS 110PS BSIV. Based on her complaint, Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 285 of 2021 was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
During the hearing, the petitioner argued that he had no direct dealings with the complainant, as sales were independently managed by authorised dealers. He contended that there was no allegation of inducement or misrepresentation against him, and therefore, the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust were absent. The dealership agreement and invoices showed that the supply was made by Absolute Auto Pvt. Ltd., Renault Dhanbad, without any involvement of the CEO. The State, however, maintained that liability could arise since the order was forwarded to Renault’s headquarters, and the role of the CEO could only be determined during investigation.
In its judgment, the Court examined the applicability of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. and clarified that the guidelines requiring affidavits under Section 156(3) CrPC apply only when a complainant invokes the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, not when the Court itself forwards a complaint. More importantly, the Court reiterated the settled principle that vicarious liability of company directors cannot be automatically imputed unless there is evidence of active involvement or a statutory provision. Referring to precedents such as Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI and Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court held that no role was attributed to the petitioner in the alleged supply of a different car model.
Concluding that continuation of proceedings against the CEO would amount to a gross abuse of process, the Court quashed the FIR and criminal prosecution against Mamillapalle. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was accordingly allowed.
