Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. - (1.) THIS is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 09 of 2009 dismissing the revision preferred challenging the order dated 23.06.2008 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta in connection with Case No. C/8660 of 2006.
(2.) THE Complaint Case No. C/8660 of 2006 was filed against the accused/petitioner under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the Court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 21.08.2006. The allegation is that the Howrah Motor Company Limited is a Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company appointed Gokuleswar Ghosh, father of the accused/petitioner as an Officer who was subsequently appointed as a wholetime Director of the Company and provided him with a free housing accommodation while he was looking after the business of the Mumbai Branch of the Company. As the Company suffered huge loss it closed down its Mumbai Branch in 1965 and Gokuleswar Ghosh was transferred from Mumbai Branch to the registered office of the Company at Kolkata. However, he continued to be in -charge of the operations of Mumbai region and from time to time he visited Mumbai for furtherance of company's business and for that the company permitted him to occupy the company's flats being Flat Nos. 3 & 4 on the second floor, Laxmi Building at premises No. 35/37, J.S.S. Road, Kennedy Bridge, Mumbai -400004. On 07.01.1984 Gokuleswar Ghosh died in harness. The petitioner/accused is his daughter and she has been illegally and wrongfully using and occupying the said flats. The company repeatedly requested the accused/petitioner to return and/or deliver vacant possession of the said flats but she failed and neglected/or refused to hand over the vacant possession of the said flats to the Company. She is in illegal and wrongful occupation of the said flats and she has been wrongfully withholding the said flats which are the property of the company. She has no legal right to use or occupy the said flats and so she is in wrongful possession of the said flats. It was further alleged that in the aforesaid manner the accused/petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 for which she should be tried and punished according to law. Annexure -A(Page -18) is the complaint in that case. On receipt of the petition of complaint, the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta, for disposal. Thereafter, he proceeded with the case and after examining the complainant and other witnesses issued process against the accused/petitioner. After appearance the accused/petitioner filed a petition on 08.02.2007 challenging the maintainability of the proceedings for want of jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of the case. The Learned Magistrate, rejected such petition holding that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the case and the case is well -maintainable. Being dissatisfied with such order, the petitioner/accused preferred a Revision being Criminal Revision No. 09 of 2009 before the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Calcutta who by passing the impugned order dated 26.08.2010 dismissed the revision. He observed that the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta did not commit any wrong or illegality by passing the impugned order which is very much just, proper and legal in the eye of law and he, therefore, found no reasons to interfere. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has now approached this Court with the instant Revisional Application.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Milan Mukherjee, Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2. I have also perused all the available materials on record including the impugned order and judgment with meticulous care.;