Dutta, J. - (1.) The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr. PC') and Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed against an order dated July 31, 1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in complaint case No. C 1064 of 1996 rejecting the petitioner-company's application under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act).
(2.) The petitioner-company acquired ownership of flat No. 168, Minto Park Syndicate in the premises No. 13, Debendra Lal Khan Road, Calcutta. The respondent No. 2 joined the company as general finance manager sometime in July 1991. He was allotted the aforesaid flat for use and occupation of his own and his family during the course of his employment in the petitioner company. The respondent No. 2 by addressing a letter dated February 3, 1994 to the company submitted his resignation expressing his desire to be released from the services of the company on the closure of business hours on June 30, 1994 and on that very day, the petitioner-company accepted his resignation. The respondent No. 2 by his letter dated February 4, 1994 applied for cancellation of his signatures from all bank accounts, power of attorney, trusteeship of provident fund and pension fund of the company. By a letter dated June 16, 1994, the secretary to the petitioner-company recorded the modalities of the handing over of the company's properties by the respondent No. 2 and informed the respondent No. 2 that he was to vacate the flat as well as the company car by June 30, 1994. He was also informed that his salary for May and June, 1994 along with deferred salary refund as applicable along with perquisites as per his entitlement would be paid to him simultaneously with the handing over of the possession of the company flat and car on June 30, 1994. The respondent No. 2 by his letter dated June 17, 1994 informed the petitioner-company that he had made alternative arrangement for his residential accommodation which would be ready by the end of December 1994 and requested the company for allowing him to continue to use the flat till December31, 1994 undertaking to hand over possession of the flat even earlier in case his alternative accommodation gets ready. The petitioner-company strictly on humanitarian grounds and as a very special case permitted the respondent No. 2 to use the flat till December 31, 1994. It was made clear by the petitioner-company by its letter dated June 22, 1994 that its representatives would go to take possession of the flat on the 1st day of August, 1994. On July 6, 1994, the respondent No. 2 returned the company car. But on July 21, 1994. the respondent No. 2 repeated his request for extension of time to retain the flat till December 31, 1994. The company representatives went to take possession of the flat from the respondent No. 2 and gave him two cheques for the sum of Rs. 51,370 and 63,562. But the respondent No. 2 refused to accept the payments and handover possession of the flat. The petitioner-company accordingly launched a prosecution by filing a complaint against the respondent No. 2 on September 20, 1994 under Section 630 alleging that the respondent No. 2 had wrongfully withheld the flat and praying for issue of process under Section 630(1) against the respondent No. 2 and also for a direction under Section 630(2) upon the respondent No. 2 to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the flat.
(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the respondent No. 2 who appeared on February 22, 1995 and pleaded not guilty.;