IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 2626 OF 2022 Mrs. Reba Kalyan Mitra -Vs-

The Howrah Motor Company Private Limited For the Petitioner : Mr. Debasish Roy Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. S. Nag Mr. Saibal Dasgupta For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anirudhya Dutta Mr. Sachit Talukdar Hearing concluded on : 04.11.2025 Judgment on : 19.12.2025 UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

1. This revisional application, preferred under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, brings into sharp focus a delicate judicial dilemma: the intersection of rigorous corporate proprietary rights and the quintessential demands of humanitarian equity. The Petitioner, a 79-year-old bedridden lady, seeks the quashing of a judgment dated June 30, 2022, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bench II, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. By the said order, the Revisional Court overturned a procedural refusal by the Learned 17th Metropolitan Magistrate and issued a peremptory mandate directing the Petitioner to deliver vacant possession of two company-tenanted flats in Mumbai within thirty days. The central controversy pivots on whether the restorative powers under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (now Section 452 of the 2013 Act) can be invoked as an interim tool to bypass a stagnant trial, especially when such an order results in the immediate displacement of a vulnerable, ailing senior citizen.

2. The genesis of this protracted legal odyssey dates back to 1940, when the Petitioner’s father, the late Gokuleswar Ghose, joined the Opposite Party Company, eventually ascending to the high office of Director. As a perquisite of his service, the Company provided him with rent-free residential accommodation in Flat Nos. 3 and 4, Laxmi Building, Mumbai. This occupation was strictly permissive and co-terminus with his tenure of service. Upon his demise in harness on January 7, 1984, the legal substratum for such occupation effectively extinguished. However, the Petitioner continued her residence therein, an act the Company characterizes as "wrongful withholding" under the special penal provisions of the Companies Act.

3. The record reveals a multi-dimensional legal battle spanning nearly four decades. Seeking to fortify her possession, the Petitioner initiated a Rent Act Declaration Suit (RAD Suit No. 5 of 2003) in Mumbai to establish independent tenancy rights. The Company viewed this as a tactical maneuver to frustrate the retrieval of corporate property. In a reactive move, the Company instituted Complaint Case No. C-8660 of 2006 under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking both the penalization of the Petitioner and the restoration of the property. For over fifteen years, the criminal trial remained largely moribund, hampered by the Petitioner’s deteriorating health—marked by paralysis, cardiac ailments, and brain hemorrhages—and various jurisdictional challenges that traversed the hierarchy of courts up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. On June 21, 2019, the Learned 17th Metropolitan Magistrate sought to resolve the procedural deadlock. While he refused the Petitioner’s plea for representation in absentia under Section 205 Cr.P.C., he also rejected the Company’s prayer for immediate possession of flats. The Magistrate held that in a summons case, no final or interim order under Section 630(2) could be passed until the accused was personally examined and her plea recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Balancing these factors, the Magistrate directed the Commissioner of Police to execute an outstanding arrest warrant, noting a medical report stating the Petitioner was "fit to travel with assistance."

5. This decision was challenged by the Company in Criminal Revision No.

215 of 2019 before the Learned Sessions Court on the ground that the Magistrate's approach was pedantic and mechanical, prioritizing formal procedure over the statutory mandate of Section 6