M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In this application filed under Section 482 Cr PC the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings and the order dated 16.3.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate Jamshedpur in C.I. No. 1152 of 2000 whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 630 of the Companys Act against the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case is that petitioner was in the service of opposite party No. 2 Company and while he was in service he was extended the facility of residential accommodation since 1993. Petitioners service was terminated by the Company with effect from 6.10.99. The Company thereafter asked the petitioner to vacate the residential quarter since he ceased to be in employment of the Company Inspite of notice and reminders, petitioner did not vacate the premises and thereby he alleged to have committed offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act by wrongfully withholding the said premises which is the property of the Company.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the criminal proceeding and the order of cognizance as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that when the services of the petitioner was terminated, he moved before the appropriate government for referring the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Government finally referred the disputes to the Labour Court vide notification dated 17.11.2000 being Reference Case No. 61/2000/. Learned counsel submitted that since termination of service of the petitioner was illegal, the Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication and as such under these circumstances the criminal prosecution against the petitioner under Section 630 of the Companies Act is an abuse of process of the Court.

4. Section 630 of the Companies Act reads as under :

"Penalty for wrongful withholding of property.--(1) If any officer or employee of a company--

(a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a company; or

(b) having any such property in his possession wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed to the articles and authorized by this Act,

He shall, on the complaint of the company or any creditor or contributory thereof, be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

(2) The Court trying the offence may also order such officer or employee to deliver up or refund, within a time to be fixed by the Court, knowingly misapplied or in default to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years."

5. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is manifest that if any employee of a company wrongfully obtains illegal possession of any property of a company or having in possession of such property wrongfully withholding the same, is liable to be prosecuted and punished.

6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel, the only question that falls for consideration is whether an officer or employee of a company whose services has been terminated can be brought under the mischief of the provision of Companies Act. In other words whether any employee or the officer of a company whose service has been, terminated can not be prosecuted under the aforesaid section merely because the order of termination is challenged before a Court of law. This question came for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., (1987) 4 SCC 361. It was held that such an employee or officer whose services has been terminated also come within the mischief of the provision of Section 630 of the said Act. Their Lordships observed :

"Section 630 of the Act which makes the wrongful withholding of any property of a company by an officer or employee of the company a penal offence, is typical of the economy of language which is characteristic of the draughtsman of the Act. The section Is in two parts. Sub-section (1) by Clauses (a