Back
1982 Supreme(Bom) 92
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.J. Deshpande, J.
Suresh Venkatrao Nerlekar (Dr.) .... Petitioner.
Versus
Sharanghadar Pandurang Nadkarni others .... Respondents.
Criminal Application No. 1770 of 1981, decided on 15-3-82.
Advocates appeared :
R.M. Agarwal with N.N. Vaishnawa, for petitioner/original accused.
R.G. Menon, K.R. Dhanuka, V.S. Khemka Co., for respondent No.1.
S.B. Patil, P.P., for State.
The issue of tenancy is not identical in the civil and criminal proceedings. The criminal court is only concerned with whether the petitioner had occupied the premises without lawful authority after the termination of his employment.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - SECTION 630(1)(B) - STAY OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - TENANCY DISPUTE - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL COURTS - PUBLIC INTEREST - DELAY IN CIVIL LITIGATION - COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - SECTION 630(1)(B) - WRONGFUL OCCUPATION OF PREMISES - CRIMINAL INTENT - SCOPE OF CRIMINAL COURT'S INQUIRY - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT TO QUASH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT TO STAY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - PUBLIC INTEREST - DELAY IN CIVIL LITIGATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ex-employee of the respondent company, was charged with wrongful occupation of the company's premises under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner claimed tenancy rights and filed a declaratory suit in the Small Causes Court. He also filed a petition in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings and stay the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the issue of tenancy was not identical in the civil and criminal proceedings. The criminal court was only concerned with whether the petitioner had occupied the premises without lawful authority after the termination of his employment. The High Court also held that the stay of criminal proceedings was not justified as it would defeat the purpose of section 630 of the Companies Act and prolong the misery of the litigants due to delays in civil litigation.
Issues: 1. Whether the issue of tenancy is identical in the civil and criminal proceedings? 2. Whether the stay of criminal proceedings is justified in the interest of public policy and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The issue of tenancy is not identical in the civil and criminal proceedings. The criminal court is only concerned with whether the petitioner had occupied the premises without lawful authority after the termination of his employment. 2. The stay of criminal proceedings is not justified in the interest of public policy and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It would defeat the purpose of section 630 of the Companies Act and prolong the misery of the litigants due to delays in civil litigation.
Final Decision: The High Court discharged the rule and vacated the stay granted earlier. The petition was dismissed.
2. A few facts leading to this application may be stated to understand controversy in this application :
The first respondent-complainant initiated the prosecution in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay by its complaint dated April 22, 1981. Till October 21, 1981 there were several adjournments and the petitioner who was original accused did not file any say or statement pleading guilty or otherwise. The case was adjourned to November 14, 1981. It was stated that the Magistrate was orally requested to say the proceedings. Then on October 12, 1981 the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the High Court inviting the High Court to quash the criminal proceeding.
3. The first respondent-company is the employer and the petitioner accused is their ex-employee, who is a doctor and conducting his dispensary in the premises of the Company under an agreement which is called leave and licence agreement dated July 1, 1969, he was given permission to conduct the dispensary. There is also an order of appointment which is dated July 2, 1969, the terms of this order are as under :
"Pursuant to the agreement dated 1st July, 1969 signed between this company and yourself, we have pleasure in appointing you as the Medical Officer of the Companys Mills on retainer basis. You will be paid a retainer fee of Rs. 400/- (Rupees four hundred only) per month. During the tenure of your office, you will carry out the following duties".
Then other terms are not necessary to be quoted. Last but one paragraph of the order of appointment is as under :
"You will be permitted to use the dispensary situated in the compound of the Modern Mills Chawls facing Clerk Road and Jacob Circle along with the equipment provided therein and you shall pay a sum of Rs. 75/- per month by way of compensation for use and occupation of the said dispensary premises".
It is also necessary to refer the last paragraph of letter of appointment which is under :
"Your association with us will be governed by the other terms and conditions specified in the said agreement dated 1st July, 1969. It may please be noted that you will not be eligible for any provident fund, gratuity, bonus or any other benefits applicable to the employees of the company."
On the strength of this agreement, the petitioner served in the employment of the Company for a period of 10 years as provided by the agreement. After expiry of 10 years period, he was served with the notice of termination during the tenure as a Medical Officer, under the terms of the agreement, which I will quote later. The petitioner was put in possession of the premises measuring 240 square feet in area and in view of Clause 2 of t
