SUJIT KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Hari Nath Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Company's Complaint Case No. 1447 of 2022 (Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Sujit Kumar Pandey) u/s 452 of Companies Act, 2013 (Erstwhile Sec. 630 of Companies Act, 1956), Police Station- Pipri, District- Sonbhadra including the impugned summoning order dtd. 13/12/2022 pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

(3.) This matter was heard on 21/11/2024. On that date, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the retiral benefits of the applicant could not be disbursed for the reason that the applicant had not vacated the quarter of the company. Therefore, this Court vide order dtd. 21/11/2024 directed the applicant to vacate the quarter of the company just to show his bonafide with further direction to opposite party no. 2 with the consent of counsel for opposite party no. 2 to take lenient view in releasing the retiral due of applicant.