SATISH DAYAL MATHUR Vs. MACKINNON MACKENZIE AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') succinctly are that the respondent-Company institute a complaint against the petitioner under Sec'tion 630(1) of the Companies Act on 7th December, 1982 on the allegations that it (respondent-Company) was a tenant in respect of a part of the ground floor of house No. 8A, Paschim Marg, C-Block, Vasant Vihar, under lease-deed dated 26th April. 1979. The petitioner was then in the employment of the respondent- Company as an executive. The said premises were, therefore, given to him for residence on the specific condition that he would vacate the same and surrender possession thereof to the respondent-Company on the termination of his employment. Certain items of furniture and an air-conditioner were also supplied to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner resigned from the service of the respondent vide his letter dated 8th October, 1982 which was accepted. However, the petitioner did and Company and another not surrender peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-Company. He did not even return the articles of furniture and air-conditioner etc., as stipulated.

(2.) The petitioner was summoned by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to face trial for the aforesaid offence. Notice under Section 251 of the Code was duly served on him on 12th April, 1983. The case was then adjourned to 12th August, 1983 for evidence, of the respondent-complainant. In the meanwhile, however, an application was moved on behalf of the respondent on 5th August, 1983 for permission to withdraw the complaint. It was contended that due to inadvertence/ oversight the Court had not examined the complainant under Section 200 of the Code which was mandatory in the case of a private complaint before issuing process against the accused i.e. the petitioner. So, he sought permission to withdraw the complaint in order to remove the said defect with liberty to file a fresh complaint. Indeed, he had filed the fresh complaint alongwith the said application.

(3.) The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the said application on that very day with the f'ollowing observations :