IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8080 OF 2013 Between:
Dr. M.Parthasarathy, S/o late T.Muniswamy, Aged about 58 years, R/a No.382, Srichakra Nilaya, 1-Floor, 6th Cross, 2nd Block, RMV Extension II Stage, Bangalore – 560 094. …Petitioner (By Sri.Kemparaju, Advocate) And:
M/s. Greens Agri Genetics P Ltd., A Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 And having its Regd. Office At No.325/1, RMV Extension, 5th Cross, 14th Main Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore – 560 080. Represented by its Director, Sri.Chandrashekar. ...Respondent (By Sri. M.G.Nanjappa, Advocate) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.130/2012 on the file of the Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore etc.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.
2. The petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.130/2012 pending on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore. These proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 630 of the Companies Act on the ground that the petitioner after the termination of his appointment has failed to hand over the accommodation provided to him by the complainant-company.
3. The Special Court recorded the sworn statement of the Director of the complainant-company, considered the document produced by him, namely the attested copy of the Lease Deed (Ex. C3) and the statement made by him that six months after the appointment, the petitioner was directed to tender his resignation and vacate the leasehold premises and that the petitioner had also filed O.S.No.7789/2009.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per the terms of appointment, the petitioner was entitled to reside in the accommodation provided by the complainant-company for a period of five years. After the expiry of said period, he has vacated the premises and therefore he has not committed the alleged offence.
5. It is not in dispute that the appointment order was dated 01.04.2009 and five years period expired on 31.03.2014. The impugned proceedings are filed in the year 2010 on the specific allegation that appointment of the petitioner was terminated by issue of notice and the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession. There is no material on record to show that even though the petitioner had challenged the said action of the employer by filing O.S.No.7789/2009, no interim order has been passed by the Civil Court preventing the petitioner from handing over possession of the said house. In the absence of any such material, prima-facie it could be held that petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act and has rendered liable for prosecution.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the proceedings. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-