MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an acrionious petition between two sets of people contending themselves to be the Directors of and in possession of the office buildings of the Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd., Hoshiarpur. The law invoked for the purpose is section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Executive Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, dated January 13, 1993, annexed as Annexure P-1 with the petition, passed under section 145 of the said Code. And as a sequel thereto, there is an order of the Executive Magistrate, appointing the Tehsildar as a Receiver, Annexure PB, and that too is the subject matter of attack.

(2.) For the disposal of this petition, the barest minimum facts need be taken note of. It is stated in the petition that on a Kalendra made by respondent No. 3 Station House Officer, Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur, proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were initiated. Along with the proceedings under section 145 of the Code, respondent No. 4, viz, the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur, was appointed as the Receiver for the property and notices were given to the contesting parties to produce their evidence in support of their respective cases. II is then stated that, after receipt of the notice, the petitioner produced various documents in support of the claim that there was a dispute between the Management of the Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd. and its Directors, and as majority of the Directors were with the petitioner on the basis of that dispute, some of the Directors were changed and there was division between different Directors. The majority group had appointed Shri Manjit Singh Lali as the General Manager and they had started functioning and performing their duties as the Directors of the Company. In proof of the proper functioning of the Company, some documents such as Annexures P-2 and P-7 as stated in the petition were produced. It is also stated in the petition that in view of the huge evidence it was impossible for respondent No. 2, that is, Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Executive Magistrate, Hoshiarpur to come to a conclusion as to which of the parties was in possession of the Company. It may be stated that the petitioner claims himself to be the Director of the Hoshiarpur Express Transport Co. Ltd.

(3.) Later on, the petitioner filed another Criminal Miscellaneous Application (No. 3828 of 1993) again under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, to place on record the additional Annexures P-8 to P-17 on the main file and also prayed therein that the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum Executive Magistrate, Hoshiarpur and orders Annexures P-1, P-8 and P-9, passed by him, be quashed.