M/S. DODSAL LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith finally. The petitioner herein is the complainant in Criminal Complaint No. 1641/P/2000 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the tenant in Tejkiran Building. It had taken a godown on rent from the landlord vide letter dated 29.8.1969. Subsequently, the company became a tenant of the said premises. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with M/s. Keshavlal R. Shah on 9.10.1969. The petitioner was paying the rent of Rs. 1850/- per month. In the year 1981, the tenants of the said building had formed a Co-operative Housing Society which was registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner had expressed its desire to become the member of the said Society and further that they would buy the said premises since they were occupying the same since August 1969. The members of the Society in the Annual General Meeting held on 8.8.1986 had intimated the petitioner as a member of the Society. The share certificates were issued in favour of the petitioner and as a member, the petitioner was paying the maintenance charges as well as allied charges to the Society. By a letter dated 22.4.1983, it was agreed that in case the petitioner becomes the owner of the said plot, the Society would transfer all the rights of ownership. The accused No. 1 was working as an Administrative Officer in the Company from October, 1977 to 1984 and, therefore, it was permitted to use part of the said premises the present respondent No. 2 had joined the petitioner as an accountant and was later appointed as Deputy Manager-Accounts and Finance on 2.4.1981. He was also permitted to use the premises along with father N.T. Rangaswamy i.e. the original accused No. 1. On 22.11.1982, the respondent No. 2 resigned from the said services in order to reside at his native place at Bangalore. The respondent No. 2 and his father had continued to stay in the said premises on compassionate ground. On 12.9.1984, N.T. Rangaswamy retired as an Administrative Officer.

(2.) The respondent No. 2 resigned on 17.6.1991. The petitioner had therefore called upon the respondent No. 2 and his father to vacate the premises from 31.7.1991 As they were residing there on a service tenancy contract. However, the respondent No. 2 claims to be the tenants of the said premises on the basis of a letter dated 22.4.1983. The letter was addressed to Mr. N.T. Rangaswamy only because he was working as an Administrative Officer of the Petitioner-Company. The said letter was signed by M.M. Kothari i.e. the original accused No. 3, who was officiating as a Director of the said Company. In 1991, the accused were not willing to hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the Company. The accused No. 3 had forged the letter-head of the Company. It was ante-dated letter purportedly signed by M.M. Kothari transferring the ownership in his favour. The Company in fact had not entrusted the accused No. 3 with any authority to issue such a letter as the Board of Directors had not approved of it. In 1991, the accused No. 1 had, for the first time, brought it to the notice of the Company that he was in possession of the said premises by virtue of the letter dated 22.4.1983. The accused No. 1 had also filed the suit in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai against the company and the same is disposed of by an order dated 3.2.1995. The petitioner had therefore filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The learned Magistrate had issued an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The accused persons were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act is a non-cognizable offence and, therefore, the same was not investigated by the police.

(3.) On 8.5.2000, the matter was transferred to the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. In respect of Sec. 630 of the Companies Act, the petitioner had filed an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, on 24.1.2001 seeking permission to file a afresh complaint against the accused. The Magistrate had granted permission and, therefore, the complaint was field in the Girgaum Court.