DINESH CHAND AND ORS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cr. Misc. 1100 of 1998 has been heard together along with Cr.Misc. No. 21278/98 as they both have been preferred for quashing the order dated 13.2.1997 passed by Shri G.S. Ram Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Sasaram in Complaint Case No. 24/97 corresponding to Tr. No. 1038/97 whereby and whereunder has been taken under Sections 147, 323, 342 and 504 of the IPC and also for quashing the petition of complaint on the basis of which Complaint Case No. 24/97 was registered in the Court of CJM, Rohtas at Sasaram.

(2.) It appears that complainant/O.P.No. 2 Sunil Kumar Sharad filed a petition of complaint vide Complaint Case No. 24/97 in the Court of CJM, Rohtas at Sasaram against Dinesh Chand (petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 1100 of 1998) Ram Govind Thakur, A.R.Sharma, Shambhu Singh and R.K.P. Sinha (petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 21278/98) for an occurrence which had allegedly taken place on 6.1.1997 at 12.30 p.m. in the guest house of Sahu Jain. The case of the complainant, in short, is that on 6.1.1997 at 12.30 p.m. he went to meet the Official Liquidator of M/s. Rohtas Industries Ltd. to discuss the local problems in respect of water, supply of electricity etc. The complainant introduced himself at President of Dehri Prakhand Yuva Janta Dal to petitioner Dinesh Chand and tried to discuss the local problems but the petitioner refused to listen him and asked him to go away from the office. It is alleged that petitioner Dinesh Chand indulged in scuffle with the complainant during course of which the complainant lost his wrist watch which was taken away by the petitioner. The petitioner called the other persons of management named R.G. Thakur, A.R.Verma, Shambhu Singh and R.K.P. Sinha who assaulted the complainant. It is further alleged that on the order given by petitioner Dinesh Chandra to assault the complainant, he was kept confined for four hours in a room and threatening to shoot him was also given. It appears that learned Magistrate examined the complainant on S.A. and also the statement of two witnesses examined during enquiry and after being satisfied that prima facie case is made out took cognizance against the petitioners and ordered to issue summons against them.

(3.) It is the case of petitioners that Dinesh Chand was initially appointed as Registrar of Companies on the recommendation of UPSC by the Hon'ble President in the Central Company Law Service w.e.f. 29.4.1992 in the office of Registrar of Companies, Kolkata vide Annexure-I to the application. Petitioner Dinesh Chand thereafter was transferred as Registrar of Companies Bihar, Patna and accordingly, he joined the said post on 13.1.1995. He was later on transferred as Official liquidator vide notification dated 12.6.1996 vide Annexure-2 to the application and accordingly, he joined the post of Official liquidator on 24.6.1996. The Rohtas Industries Ltd. which Dehri Sasaram Railway and Parsawa Mining Properties Ltd. are the sister companies closed down their operation in the year 1984 and at the instance of one Shri Ajit Kumar Singh Kesliwal, winding up proceeding being Company Petition No.3/1984 was registered before this Court. The Hon'ble Company Judge of this Court passed the winding up order and the Official Liquidator took charge of the assets of the company. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court and during the pendency of the writ petition several orders/directions were issued by that Court. The Supreme Court made attempt for the revival of the industry but ultimately their Lordships by a judgment and order dated 18.10.1995 disposed of the writ petition and issued certain directions including that of the moratorium imposed shall cease to operate w.e.f. 31.12.1995. In pursuance of direction of the Supreme Court the winding up proceeding commenced on 24.11.1995. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Jha, vested with the original company jurisdiction passed necessary orders for winding up and the Official Liquidator in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, took charge of the assets including assets which were in possession of the Rehabilitation Commissioner during the period of moratorium passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Company Judge thereafter passed several orders in respect of the assets of the company.