P.K. Bahri, J.

1. In all these criminal revision petitions same type of orders have been made by the learned A.C.M.M. and in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and thus they are being disposed of by this order

2. Facts in all these cases, in brief, are that M/s Texmaco Limited, petitioner in all these revision petitions had filed criminal complaints against its various employees separately pleading that petitioner-company had acquired the proprietary rights in respect of the mills as well as the housing colonies by by virtue of a scheme of arrangement arrived at between the complainant company and M/s Birla Cotton, Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. in pursuance to the orders passed by the Honble High Court of Delhi on January 3, 1983 in Company Petition No. 59 of 1982. I am taking the facts from Criminal Revision No. 671 of 1990. Except for name of the accused, all other facts are similar in all the complaints. So, it was pleaded that accused had joined M/s. Birla Cotton, Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. as its employee and by virtue of the aforesaid taking over of the said company by the petitioner, the respondent accused become its employee. It was pleaded that accused had been allowed residential accommodation in the residential colony of M/s. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. as an employee and he was to surrender the said accommodation on his termination of services with the said Company and respondent had also signed the allotment letter in that connection after the petitioner became owner of the M/s. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and the properties belonging to the said mills and in that letter of allotment it was clearly stipulated that the said residential accommodation allotted to him will remain with him till he remains in the service and thereafter he would give peaceful vacant possession of the said accommodation to the petitioner. It was alleged in the complaint that respondent having failed to handover the vacant possession of the premises after he ceased to be an employee of the Company, he had committed an offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act and also under Sections 441, 406 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The accused had moved an application before the learned A.C.M.M. seeking stay of the criminal case pleading that he had already instituted a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction to the effect that he is in possession of the said quarter as a tenant and was not liable to be dispossessed from the said quarter except in accordance with law and he had obtained a temporary injunction against the petitioner company restraining the petitioner-company from dispossessing the respondent forcibly. The learned A.C.M.M. passed me order that the proceeding in the criminal complaint would continue but no final judgment would be given till the matter was finally decided by the Civil Court.

4. The respondent-accused had taken up the matter to the Sessions Court by filing a criminal revision and the Additional Sessions Judge had allowed the said criminal revision and had stayed the trial in the complaint case till the disposal of the civil suit finally. The petitioner-company had filed the criminal revision petitions challenging both the orders of learned A.C.M.M. as well as of Additional Sessions Judge.

5. The short question which arises for decision in all these matters is whether the proceedings in the criminal complaints should remain stayed or not till the matter is finally decided by the Civil Court

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the salutary provisions introduced in Section 630 of the Indian Companies Act would become useless if the proceedings in criminal complaint are stayed and the company is deprived from getting, the summary relief of getting possession of its property from its ex-employees. He has urged if the ex-employees do not vacate the residential accommodation allotted to them on account of their being employees of the Company the Company would not be able to accommodate its new employees which would affect the efficiency of running the company on business lines. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there does not arise any complicated questions of facts which could necessitated the decision of the Civil Court before decision of the criminal case. He has urged that it is the criminal case which should have precedence and the lower Court should not have stayed the criminal proceedings till the disposal of the civil suits which are likely to be decided after a long time. He has placed reliance on certain judgments which I will consider later on.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that similar orders have been made in some made similar matters but the petitioner had not challenged those orders and thus petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned orders by filing the present revision petition. It has been also urged that crucial questions which would arise in the criminal complaint as well as in the suit would be whether the respondent is an independent tenant or a licensee in respect of the suit premises and whether the allotment letter being relied upon in the complaint is a genuine document or not. So he has urged that these questions being complicated questions of law and fact which could be more properly decided by the Civil Court and thus the Additional Sessions Judge was right in staying the proceedings in the criminal case till the disposal of the civil suits finally. He has also made reference to certain judgments in support of his contentions.

8. In M.S. Sherrif and Another v. State of Madras : AIR 1954 S.C. 397 it has been held that as between the criminal and civil proceedings, the criminal matter should be given precedence but no hard and fast rule can be laid down. It was observed that the public interest demands that the criminal justice should be swift and sure; and that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial and another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. However, the Supreme Court itself laid down in that very judgment that special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. It was laid down that if simultaneous prosecution of the criminal proceedings and civil suit will embarrasses the accused then the civil suit should be stayed till the criminal proceedings are completed.

9. In Smt Raminder Kaur Bedi v. Shri Jatinder Singh Bedi; Criminal Revision No 54 of 1988 decided on November 22, 1988 by this Court, this judgment of the Supreme Court was considered and it was found expedient in the peculiar facts of the said case to stay the criminal case till the disposal of the divorce petition. In the said case certain defamatory allegations have been made in the divorce petition for seeking the decree of divorce. A criminal complaint was filed under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of the said defamatory allegations. This Court held that the interest of justice required that criminal case should be stayed till the disposal of the divorce petition. The said case is quite distinguishable. It will depend on peculiar facts of each case in order to decide whether the criminal case should be stayed or the civil suit should be stated. Where the disputes in criminal proceedings and civil suit were intimately connected and the civil suit was prior in time and the issues were capable of being decided more properly in civil suit, interest of justice required that the criminal case should be stayed.

10. In Atul Mathur, Divisional Sales Manager of Jenson and Nicholson (India Ltd. v. Atul Kalra and Anr., J.T. 1989 (3) S.C. 350 it has been held by the Supreme Court that the purpose of enacting Section 630 of the Companies Act is to provide speedy relief to a Company when its property is wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld by an employee or an ex-employee. In the cited case the company after taking a particular flat on lease had given the possession of the flat to the employee but the employee had got issued certain letters from some other employees of the company and filed a civil suit taking the plea that he was the direct tenant of the landlord in the said flat. In a complaint filed against him by the Company under Section 30 of the Companies Act, he pleaded for stay of the criminal case till the disposal of the civil suit. The High Court had stayed the criminal case placing reliance on ratio in Damodardas v. Krishna Chakraborti & Anr.; 1985 (57) Company Cases 115 [LQ/BomHC/1984/384] and held that as a bona fides dispute was involved with regard to the property in question, it should be more properly adjudicated by the Civil Court than by the Criminal Court. The Supreme Court examined the peculiar facts appearing in that case and held that there was no bona fides dispute being raised by the employee and thus criminal complaint cannot be stayed.

11. In the case of Damodardas (supra) the title of the company to the property was in challenge and there was a genuine bona fide dispute being raised regarding the title and thus it was opined that more appropriate forum for deciding such a disputed bona fide dispute with regard to the title would be Civil Court.

12. The learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the case of Damodardas (supra) in support of his contentions and it appears that the lower Courts were also persuaded to go by the ratio laid down in the case of Dumodardas (supra) and also by this Court in this case of Smt. Raminder Kaur Bedi (supra) for passing the impugned orders.

13. In Amrit Lal Chum v. Devoprasad Dutta Roy, AIR 1988 SC 733 [LQ/SC/1988/51] it has been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court that the words any property of a company would also refer to the residential premises allotted to an employee who fails to vacate the premises after termination of his employment and Section 630 of the Companies Act would become applicable.

14. Reference was also made to M/s. Bush India Ltd. v. Lekhraj, 1984 Crl.L.J 346. In the said case it was found that the questions raised in the criminal proceedings and the civil suit being the same and dispute essentially being of civil nature, the criminal case should be stayed. Facts in that case were totally different from the facts in the present case. There were business dealings between the complainant and the accused in the said case and disputes arose from the said business dealings and thus it was held by the Bombay High Court that appropriate forum for deciding such dispute is Civil Court and criminal case was directed to be stayed. I do not understand how anything said in this judgment is of any help to the respondents in the present case.

15. The learned Counsel for the respondent also cited Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 S.C. 472. That case was decided on its own facts. In the said parallel proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code have been brought while Civil Court was already ceased of the matter. The Supreme Court held that there is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the Criminal court and as the civil Court was already ceased of the matter and the question of title was to be decided which has been ultimately decided by the Civil Court, the question of resort to proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was misconceived. It was observed that when a civil litigation is pending for a property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, there is hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. That is not the situation here.

16. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 S.C. 806 the Supreme Court observed that though very often employers stay enquiring into the misconduct of the employees pending the decision of the criminal trial Courts dealing with the same facts and that is fair, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice require that an employer must wait for the decision at least of the criminal trial Court before taking action against an employee. However, if the case is of a grave nature or involves questions of fact or law, which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the trial Court so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. This case pertaining to different facts and thus it cannot be of any guide in resolving the issue arising in this petition.

17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made reference to Kishandas Tekchand v. The State, AIR 1956 Bombay 423. However, this case is also distinguishable on facts. In the said case the party was not seriously prosecuting the civil suit and the Bombay High Court held that criminal case could not be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit. There is no allegation in the present case that the respondent is not pursuing his civil suit diligently.

18. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made reference to Govind T. Jagttani v. Starjuddin S. Kazr, 1984 (56) Company Cases 329 [LQ/BomHC/1983/117] . It was observed in this case that entitlement of an officer to the property of the company in contingent on the right and capacity of the officer by virtue of his employment which is transformed into actual possession of the property and the duration of it being features integrally belended with the termination of the employment, the capacity and the corresponding right are extinguished with the obligation to hand over the property back to the company and if the property is held back, the retained possession would amount to wrongfully withholding of the property of the company. So, it was emphasized that wrongfully withholding of the companys property give rise to criminal liability under Section 630 of the Companies Act. It is urged that respondents and others were employees of the company and had been given residential accommodations on account of their being employees and thus the said allotments are coterminous with the respondents ceasing to be employees to have handed over the possession of the property to the Company back to the company and it has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there does not exist any complicated bona fide questions of fact or law which cannot be conveniently dealt with by the criminal Court and it was not an exercise of proper discretion by the two Courts below in directing that the criminal matter shall not be finally disposed of till the civil suits are decided. I find much force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The mere fact that respondent and other employees are disputing their signatures on the allotment letters, in my opinion, would not make the disputed question as a complicated one. Prima facie it is difficult to comprehend that the Company would resort to forge signatures of so many employees on the allotment letters. It appears that respondent and other employees have resorted to filing civil suits only with a view to delay the matter. It has been urged that in view of the law laid down in M/s. Karamchand Ganga Pershad and Another v. Union of India and Others; AIR 1971 S.C. 1244 that decisions of the civil Courts are binding on criminal Courts, the criminal proceedings be stayed. I have gone through this judgment and find that no such law has been laid down that the criminal Court should await the decision of the civil Court. It is true that if civil suit is decided, the judgment given in the civil suit can be produced before the criminal Court so that criminal Court may follow the said judgment.

19. In Dharma Pratishthan and Others v. Miss B. Mandal, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and another; 1988 (173) Income Tax Reports P. 487 the question which arose for decision was whether a criminal complaint filed for offences under the Income-tax Act should be stayed or not till the disposal of the assessment proceedings Relying on the ratio laid down in P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, (1984) 149 ITR 696 (SC), this Court held that if at any stage later on in an appeal under the Income-tax Act any decision is given disbelieving the allegations which are the subject-matter of the criminal complaint, then the criminal Court obviously would give due regard to the said findings and in appropriate cases the criminal Court may adjourn or postpone the hearing of the criminal case in exercise of its discretionary power under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code if the disposal of any proceeding under the Income-tax Act which has a bearing on the proceedings before it is imminent so that it may take into consideration such an order. The Supreme Court in the case of P. Jayappan (supra) has laid down that the criminal Court has to keep in view that the object of the criminal proceedings is not frustrated and there is no rigid rule which makes it necessary for the criminal Court to adjourn or postpone the hearing of the case before it indefinitely or for undoubtedly long period when only because some proceedings which may have some bearing on the points raised in the criminal Court is pending elsewhere. I need not express any view as to whether the respondent is actual tenant or licensee or whether provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act would become applicable and provisions of Section 630 would be made out or not even if the respondent is held to be a tenant in the premises. These questions can be decided by the criminal Court after parties have led evidence on all aspects.

20. I, hence, hold that impugned orders cannot be sustained and I set aside the impugned orders and direct the criminal Court to proceed with the criminal cases in accordance with law. Petitioners are allowed.