A.K.Dutta. J. - (1.) -By the instant revisional application under sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner-accused has prayed the Court for quashing the impugned order dated 29.3.89 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta, in Case No. C/1071 of 1988 before him, and for quashing the relevant proceedings on the grounds set forth therein.
(2.) On a petition of complaint filed by the opposite party No. 1 against the petitioner-accused herein on the allegations hereinbelow indicated, the learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the same and upon examination of the complainant and one witness present, was of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against him (petitioner-accused) under section 408, I.P.C., and had accordingly directed issue of process against him thereunder by his relevant order dated 25.5.88.
(3.) It is alleged in the petition of complaint that the petitioner-accused was appointed as Supervisor of the complainant-Company in the you 1962, and he was subsequently transferred to its Branch Office at Madras, being promoted as Senior Manager/Branch Manager of that Branch, accountable to the Registered Office at Calcutta. He was permitted by the Company to occupy the furnished first floor flat at premises No. 24, Had Street, Taylor's Estate, Kolambakkam, Madras, rented by the Company on or about February, 1977 for accommodating its officer posted at the Madras Branch Office. A list of the furnitures and fittings at the said premises has been annexed to the petition of complaint. The accused-petitioner was to handover vacant possession of the said first floor flat to the Company on his transfer/resignation/ termination of service, as the case may be. The petitioner-accused had subsequently tendered his resignation by a registered letter dated 15.6.87, addressed to the Company at its registered and Head Office at Calcutta, for the reasons indicated therein. The complainant-Company by its letter dated 18.6.87 had accepted the said resignation stating therein that he would be relieved from his duty on his handing over the accounts documents, other papers, car, telephone and possession of the aforesaid flat in proper manner to the Deputy Managing Director on 20.6.87. On that day, the petitioner-accused had handed over charge of the Madras Office and laboratory to the said Deputy Managing Director of the Company, excepting the said Flat. On representation made by him (petitioner-accused) he was allowed to stay there for a further period of two days for enabling him to make alternative arrangement for his accommodation, in the meantime. But he (petitioner) had failed to make over vacant possession of the aforesaid furnished flat to the Company despite several reminders. Per contra, he had unauthorisedly and with ulterior motive sent a letter to the landlord thereof falsely stating therein that vacant possession of the same would be handed over to him (landlord) as he (petitioner) has retired from his service and the Company would not pay the rent therefore any more. The complainant-Company had thereafter repeatedly asked him (petitioner) to hand over vacant possession of the aforesaid rented flat with the furnitures and fittings therein to it, which he had refused to do, and is still wrongfully withholding the same with the furnitures and fittings therein, worth about Rs. 8,000/- only. The complainant-Company had thus been constrained to file a civil suit before the City Civil Court at Madras praying, inter-alia, for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from handing over or surrendering possession of the aforesaid Company's rented flat to any other person, other than the Company, which is still pending. It is alleged by the complainant in the petition of complaint that the petitioner-accused has dishonestly converted for his own use the aforesaid furnitures and fittings, as mentioned in the annexure annexed thereto, which was entrusted by him to the Company, and had thereby committed an offence punishable under section 408, I.P.C., praying the Court for appropriate action therefore. As already indicated above, the learned Magistrate concerned upon consideration of the aforesaid petition of complaint and the statements of the complainant and another witness had directed issue of process against the petitioner-accused under section 408, I.P.C.;