KAPIL KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial court order impugned in the above titled five petitions of 19th february 2007, passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, delhi, is common one. Revision against aforesaid order, before the learned additional Sessions Judge, Delhi could not succeed and hence the inherent jurisdiction of this court is revoked under Section 482 of Cr. P. C.

(2.) SINCE the facts in these five cases are similar and the orders impugned are common, therefore, with the consent of the parties, these five petitions were heard together and are being disposed of together by this common order.

(3.) A complaint under Section 630 of the Indian Companies Act was filed by the respondent/complainant company against one Rajnish Gupta, the erstwhile executive director of the Complainant company and 12 properties of Complainant company situated at various places in this country are referred to in the impugned order and since accused Rajnish Gupta absconded and was declared proclaimed offender, therefore, vide impugned order accused Rajnish Gupta has been directed to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the twelve properties, as mentioned in the order of the learned Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate impugned in this petition. Section 630 of the Companies act, 1956 reads as under:-