JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Hari Nath Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 859 of 2020 (Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Amar Dayal Singh), under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Erstwhile Section 630 of Companies Act, 1956), Police Station-Pipri, District-Sonebhadra, pending before the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad

3. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated as alleged in the application are that:-

(i) The applicant was appointed as an employee of M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited (hereinafter called as “Company”), which is represented by Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Deputy Officer, who was duly authorized representative of the company.

(ii) The appointment letter was issued to the applicant on 24.11.1994 and he joined the services of company. Thereafter, the applicant was allotted company's quarter No.PB-318 by the company in its colony vide License of Quarter dated 11.09.2006 subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. One of the conditions as mentioned in the license is that the license shall stand automatically revoked on termination of service, for any reason whatsoever, retirement, resignation, transfer etc. Subsequently, the applicant was dismissed from services of the company vide letter dated 07.03.2011.

(iii) Accordingly, the applicant was no more an employee of the company with effect from 07.03.2011, i.e. the date of his dismissal from service, therefore, he had to leave the company's quarter as allotted to him. When the quarter was not vacated by the applicant, notice dated 11.03.2011 was given to the applicant to vacate the aforesaid quarter of the company by 21.03.2011 and handover the possession of the same to the company.

(iv) After several reminders and final notice, when the company's quarter was not vacated, a complaint was filed on 20.10.2020 by opposite party no.2. On the aforesaid complaint, the concerned court below has summoned the applicant under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 (erstwhile Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956).

4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant are that:-

(i) While summoning the applicant, the court concerned has formed its opinion that the applicant is in wrongful possession of the company's quarter without realizing the fact that the company has not paid the entire gratuity amount to the applicant for which he is entitled. No offence under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 is made out against the applicant.

(ii) For delayed payment of funds for which the applicant is entitled, he has already filed a C.P. No.19 of 2014 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Pipri, Sonebhadra, which is still pending.

(iii) The applicant has also filed an application dated 25.10.2018 for payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity as the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Pipri, Sonebhadra has passed the order dated 30.06.2018 directing for payment of 10% interest on gratuity amount of Rs. 2,10,610/-, which was paid to the applicant on 17.01.2018. The aforesaid application dated 25.10.2018 filed by the applicant is still pending.

(iv) As per the relevant section, the applicant cannot be said to be wrongfully withholding the company's quarter. As the interest on gratuity amount has not been paid to the applicant, hence the summoning order is not justified in the eyes of law and the entire proceedings are bad in the eye of law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Beer Bala Gupta vs. 15th Additional Session Judge, Meerut reported in 2002 0 Supreme(All) 307 wherein it has been held that company did not discharge its obligation, inasmuch as it did not pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner and in such view of the matter, the petitione