- (1.) This is an application under S. 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the summoning order as well as the criminal proceeding in complaint case No. 3435 of 1993 under Ss. 447, 120B, I.P.C. between Ajay Kumar Varma v. Subramaniam and others pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasia, Deoria.
(2.) I have heard Sri S. N. Varma, Senior Advocate and the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material brought on record.
(3.) Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, the following admitted facts emerged from the pleadings :The opposite party No. 2 is the owner and landlord of the building situate on plot Nos. 2214/2 and 2215 of village Kasiya, Tappa Nanpur, Pargana Sidhua Jobna, Tehsil Padrauna, district Deoria. He let out the aforesaid premises for opening the branch of Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as bank) at Kasia in the district Deoria. The applicant No. 1 is the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Bank posted at its head quarter in Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Bombay. Applicant No. 2 is the Deputy General Manager of the Bank posted at the Zonal Office Akash Deep, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow. The applicant No. 3 is the Regional Manager posted in the Regional Office of Bank at Deoria. The applicant No. 4 is the Branch Manager of the Bank posted at Kasiya Branch district Deoria. After the settlement of the terms and conditions of the lease deed the opposite party No. 2 executed a lease deed in favour of the Branch Manager of the Bank at Kasiya with effect from 1-6-1978 and handed over the possession of the premises to the Branch Manager for the use of the Bank and for the use of the residence ofthe Branch Manager. The period of lease expired on 31-5-1989 but the Branch Office of the Bank and the residence of the Branch, Manager continued in the said premises without any interruption. The applicant No. 4 offered to execute a fresh lease deed at a monthly rent of Rs. 2.00 per square feet of the total area subject to the condition that an additional area of 250 sq. feet will be provided for the residence of the Branch Manager and the residence in occupation of the Branch Manager will be released. The opposite party No. 2 desired to continue the lease at the enhanced rate with effect from 1-6-1989 and correspondence in this regard took place between the parties but some how the opposite party No. 2 did (not ?) execute the lease deed extending further period of lease and later on showed his inability to provide the additional accommodation of 250 sq. feet for the residence of Branch Manager. The opposite party terminated the tenancy of the bank and asked the applicant No. 4 to vacate the premises. However, bank could not vacate the premises and insisted upon the opposite party No. 2 to execute a fresh lease deed. The opposite party No. 2 served a notice under S. 441 of I.P.C. on 20-2-1992 on the applicants directing them to vacate the premises by 10 a.m. on 7-3-1993. The bank could not vacate the premises and Regional Manager sent a reply' to the opposite party on 25-2-1993. The opposite party No. 2 sent a report to the S. P. Deoria against the applicant on 11-3-1993 and filed a complaint on 12-3-1993 before the A.C.J.M. Kasiya which was registered as complaint case No. 3435 of 1993 against all the applicants and after examining the complainant on 16-3-1993 and his two witnesses Vinod Kumar Srivastava and Salamat Ali on 22-3-1993, the learned A.C.J.M. was pleased to summon the applicants for the offence under Section 447/120-B, I.P.C. on 6-11-1993.;