Dismissed

B.Karunanithi, v. Chemplast Sanmar Limited Mettur Dam Rep. by Its Vice President (Personal)

Madras HC15 Nov 2023CRL OP/18344/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This batch order dismissed Criminal Original Petitions seeking to quash complaints against former employees for wrongfully occupying company quarters post-dismissal. The Court held that the cause of action for illegal possession arose upon employment severance over 17 years ago and is distinct from pending industrial dispute regarding wages.

What did the court decide?

CrPC Section 482 petitions to quash complaints dismissed; petitioners granted 60 days to surrender premises before criminal proceedings continue.

B.Karunanithi, Vs Chemplast Sanmar Limited Mettur Dam Rep. by Its Vice President (Personal) — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.18344 of 2023 etc batch

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.Nos.18344, 18341, 20861, 20860, 20857, 18348 and 20853 of 2023

¶7

¶8

Crl.M.P.Nos.17359 of 2023 etc batch

¶9

B.Karunanithi ... Petitioner Vs.

¶10

Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Mettur Dam, Rep.by its Vice President (Personal) R.Duraisamy ... Respondent

¶11

Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records in C.C.No.41 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy in all cases

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for S.Manuraj in all cases.

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

The petitioners herein are former employees of the complainant's

¶16

company by name M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

¶17

1/6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Crl.O.P.Nos.18344 of 2023 etc batch

¶20

2. Criminal prosecution been launched against them for occupying

¶21

the quarters allotted to them while they were in the course of employment in

¶22

the complainant's company. They were dismissed from service on 27.09.2007 for the act of misconduct. Subsequent to the dismissal, the petitioners/accused were directed to handover the possession of the quarters allotted to them after the termination of license on 13.10.2007. Despite notice, they are continuously in possession and enjoyment of the quarters allotted to them wrongfully. Hence they are liable to be punished under Section 630 of the Companies Act and the company is entitled to get back the possession of the quarters. It is also contended in the complaint that the petitioners are not paying the legitimate dues to the complainant towards electricity charge, cable charge etc., which runs to several lakhs. This complaint has been taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur in the year 2014 but still not reached the logical conclusion for various reasons.

¶23

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to quash the said complaint contends that the petitioners were permanent employee of the respondent management and they were unceremoniously dismissed from service on 04.12.2007 without following the due process of law and therefore, proceedings are pending questioning the unlawful termination.

¶24

2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Crl.O.P.Nos.18344 of 2023 etc batch

¶27

Therefore, by suppressing the correct facts, in order to gain advantage over the petitioners, private complaint been lodged.

¶28

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the various litigation been pending arising out of the Industrial Dispute and also submitted that the wages for the petitioner has not been properly settled by the complainant company.

¶29

5. Be that as it may, dispute between the employer and the employee is arising out of independent cause of action and that cannot be mixed up with the facts of the case which makes out an independent cause of action for a criminal action. Admittedly, the premises in which the petitioners are occupying belongs to the company. After termination of the service, employer and employee relationship got severed as early as in the year 2007. Criminal prosecution was launched in the year 2014 and now we are in the year 2023. Precisely for about 17 years, these petitioners are occupying the properties of the company without any prima facie right to occupy, which squarely applies offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act.

¶30

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that if

¶31

3/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Crl.O.P.Nos.18344 of 2023 etc batch

¶34

some sufficient time is granted to the petitioners, they will vacate the premises and work out their remedy regarding wages and other aspects before the Courts where the issue is pending. Though the said request emanating after 17 years, may not appear equitable, however, if the petitioners want to give quietus to the criminal prosecution launched against them, it is open for them to surrender the premises within a period of 60 days from today. On such surrender, the trial Court shall drop the criminal proceedings against who have surrender the premises and proceed against others who continue in the possession of the property.

¶35

7. With this observation, this Criminal Original Petitions to quash are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two moths thereafter.

¶36

15.11.2023

¶37

Neutral Citation : Yes/No rpl

¶38

¶39

4/6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Crl.O.P.Nos.18344 of 2023 etc batch

¶42

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur.

¶43

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶44

5/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

Crl.O.P.Nos.18344 of 2023 etc batch

¶47

rpl

¶48

Crl.O.P.Nos.18344 of 2023 etc

¶49

15.11.2023

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

6/6

B.Karunanithi, v. Chemplast Sanmar Limited Mettur Dam Rep. by Its Vice President (Personal)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Karunanithi, v. Chemplast Sanmar Limited Mettur Dam Rep. by Its Vice President (Personal)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Manikandan Vs the Commissioner of Police

D.Manivannan Vs the State Rep by, Its

Senthamarai Vs the State Rep by Its

D.Sandhiya Vs The Director General of Police

R. Ranganayagi Vs State Rep.by

Sanjitha Vs Jeeva