1 2025:CGHC:47902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1108 of 2018 1 - Satyapujan Mishra S/o Late Shri Shankar Mishra Aged About 50 Years R/o- Koriya Coaliery, Chirmiri Area, P.S.- Chirimiri, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Chirmiri Area Through- Senior Manager (Mining)/ Mines Manager, Doman Hill, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Kurasiya Officers Colony, P.O.- Kurasiya, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “CrPC”), read with Section 437 of the Companies Act, 2013, has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18-04-2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Companies Act), Bilaspur, in Special Case (Companies Act) 15/2018, whereby the learned Special Court has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 447 and 452 of the Companies Act, 2013, registered the complaint case and issued summons to the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.23 19:34:29 +0530 2 petitioner/accused. 2. The subject matter, in brief, is that on 05-04-2018, the respondent/complainant South Eastern Coalfields Limited (in short “SECL”) filed a complaint case under Section 200 of the CrPC, read with Section 447 and 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short “the Act of 2013”), before the learned Special Court constituted under Section 435 of the Act of 2013. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant had allotted two minor type quarters to the National Colliery Association, Koriya Colliery, for the smooth functioning of the association and in the interest of the workers, vide order dated 05-07-1994 and 31-03-2001. By the lapse of time, the recognition and registration of the association is cancelled, and thereafter it has no industrial relation with the complainant; therefore, in the process to get the quarters vacated, they started proceeding for its vacation. The complainant came to know that the present petitioner is occupying the subject quarters of the complainant, illegally, along with others, over the Quarter Nos. M-27, M-28, M-29 and M-30. The proposed accused persons belong to the same family and are close relatives. The subject quarters have not been legally allotted to the accused persons. The proceedings under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, were also initiated by the complainant before the Estate Officer. After hearing the parties, the Estate Officer passed the order on 15-09-2015 and directed the petitioner to vacate the subject premises within 15 days. The order dated 15-09-2015 was challenged by the petitioner/accused before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya, vide 3 Cr.A. No. unnumbered/2015 (Satyapoojan v. Colliery manager and Others), which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29-08-2017. The petitioner/accused is in illegal possession of the quarter of the complainant company without any allotment, and despite several notices, he is not vacating the subject quarters. Therefore, the petitioner/accused may be punished for the offence under Sections 447 and 452 of the Companies Act, 2013. 3. The complaint case filed by the complainant was registered vide order dated 18-04-2018 by the learned Special Court, took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the proposed accused persons. The said order dated 18-04-2018 is under challenge in the present criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the present case was also the issue in the proceeding before the Estate Officer, and there cannot be double jeopardy for the petitioner. The dispute raised by the complainant is purely a civil dispute, which is giving the colour of criminality. He would further submit that the offence of Section 447 and 452 of the Act of 2013 is not applicable in the present case because there are no ingredients of fraud in the case. the subject quarter was never allotted to the petitioner, and the provisions of Section 452 apply to the officers/employees only. The petitioner is neither an officer nor an employee of the complainant, and therefore, prosecution against the petitioner and his family members is liable to be quashed. Unless the accused is an employee and there are ingredients of fraud, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Sections 447 and 452 of the Act of 2013. He would also submit 4 that the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, is not authorized to hear the complaint case under the Act of 2013, and therefore, the registration of offence, taking cognizance and issuance of summons to the accused is without authority and is an abuse of process of law. He would also submit by referring to the notification dated 18-05-2016 and 01-09-2016, that the said notification is with respect to Section 454 of the Act of 2013 and not for Section 447 and 452 of the Act of 2013. Therefore, in the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 18-04-2018 is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would submit that the two minor quarters were allotted to the “Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Koriya Colliery”, vide order dated 05-07-1994 and 31-03-2001, for official use of the above-said Trade Union. After some time, the registration of the said Trade Union is cancelled and then the relation between the SECL and the Trade Union ceases to exist. After the cancellation of registration, the said Trade Union did not vacate the subject quarters. When it was found that the petitioner and his family members were in unauthorized occupation of the subject quarters, they started proceedings for its vacation under the Act of 1971. On 15-09-2015, the Estate Officer has also passed the order for eviction of the petitioner from the subject quarters. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15-09-2015 is also dismissed for want of prosecution. Considering the violation of the provisions of the Act of 2013, the respondent SECL filed the complaint case against the petitioner and his family members, who are in unauthorized possession of the subject quarters. He would further submit that vide 5 notification dated 01-09-2016, the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, is empowered to hear the matters under Section 447 and 452 of the Act of 2013. The learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, has only registered the complaint case, and after taking cognizance of the offence, issued summons to the accused persons. The petitioner and other accused persons have every right to make their submission at the time of framing of charge before the learned trial court. There is sufficient prima facie material against the petitioner to register the complaint case and to issue the summons to the accused persons. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition, gone through their respective pleadings and also perused the record of the trial court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the jurisdictional issue in the case as the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, is not authorized to hear the matter under the Companies Act, 2013. He also submitted that the notification was issued with respect to Adjudicating Officers for penalties under Section 454 of the Companies Act, and not for the offence under Section 447 and 452 of the Companies Act. Although, he would rely upon the copy of the notification annexed at Page No. 31 of the writ petition, however, in the down below of the said document, it is mentioned that:- “The aforesaid Courts mentioned in column number (2) shall exercise the jurisdiction as Special Courts in respect of jurisdiction mentioned in column number (3).- Notification No. S.O. 2843E, dated 1-9-2016.” 8. The copy of the notification dated 01-09-2016 issued by the Ministry of 6 Corporate Affairs, New Delhi, is produced by the learned counsel for the respondent on 09-12-2024, along with the covering memo, and the notification is as under:- MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 1st September, 2016 S.O. 2843 (E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of secnon 435 of the Companies Act 18 of 2011, the Central Government hereby, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Counts of Outing, Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana, Madras and Manipur, designates the following Courts as Special Catts a de purposes of providing speedy trial of offences punishable with imprisшелsent of two years or more under the Companies Act, 2013, namely:- TABLE Sl. No. Existing Court Jurisdiction as Special Court (1) (2) (3) 1 Sessions Judge. Bilaspur State of Chhattisgarh 2 Court of Special Judge, (Sati Niwaran). Jaipur State of Rajasthan 3 Court of Sessions Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar State of Punjab 4 Court of Sessions Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon State of Haryana 5 Court of Sessions Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh Union Territory of Chandigarh 6 I Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore Districts of Coimbatore, Dharmapuri, Dingirul, Erode, Krishnagiri, Namakkal, Nilgiris, Salem and Tiruppur. 7 II Additional District and Sessions Court, Puducherry Union Territory of Puducherry 8 Sessions Judge, Imphal East State of Manipur 2. The aforesaid Courts mentioned in column number (2) shall exercise the jurisdiction as Special Courts in rspect of jurisdiction mentioned in column number (3). 9. From perusal of the said notification dated 01-09-2016, it transpires that the said notification is issued by exercising the powers under 7 Section 435 of the Act of 2013. Section 435 of the Act of 2013 is necessary to reproduce here for the sake of convenience, which reads as under:- “[435. Establishment of Special Courts.— (1) The Central Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of 2[offences under this Act, except under section 452, by notification] establish or designate as many Special Courts as may be necessary. (2) A Special Court shall consist of— (a) a single judge holding office as Session Judge or Additional Session Judge, in case of offences punishable under this Act with imprisonment of two years or more; and (b) a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, in the case of other offences, who shall be appointed by the Central Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the judge to be appointed is working.]” 10. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that the Central Government has established the Special Court by the said notification dated 01-09-2016, and the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, is nominated for the State of Chhattisgarh, for the speedy trial of the offence under Section 452 of the Act of 2013. Section 436 of the Act of 2013 provides that all offences specified under Section 435(1) of the Act of 2013 shall be triable only by the Special Court, established or designated for the area. The Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, is established and designated for the State of Chhattisgarh, by the notification dated 01-09-2016; 8 therefore, the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, has the jurisdiction to try the offence as alleged in the complaint filed by the respondent. 11. The next submission of the petitioner was that the ingredients of Sections 447 and 452 of the Act of 2013 are missing, and it does not apply to the petitioner as the petitioner is neither the employee of the respondent SECL nor any ingredient of fraud are there. Section 447 of the Act of 2013 provides the punishment for fraud, and Explanation (i) of Section 447 provides the definition of fraud, which reads as under:- “447. Punishment for fraud.— Without prejudice to any liability including repayment of any debt under this Actor any other law for the time being in force, any person who is found to be guilty of fraud, 1[involving an amount of at least ten lakh rupees or one per cent. of the turnover of the company, whichever is lower] shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than the amount involved in the fraud, but which may extend to three times the amount involved in the fraud: Provided that where the fraud in question involves public interest, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than three years. 2[Provided further that where the fraud involves an amount less than ten lakh rupees or one per cent. Of the turnover of the company, whichever is lower, and does not involve public interest, any person guilty of such fraud shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to 3[fifty lakh rupees] or with both.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this section— (i) “fraud”, in relation to affairs of a company or any body corporate, includes any act, omission, concealment of any fact or abuse of position 9 committed by any person or any other person with the connivance in any manner, with intent to deceive, to gain undue advantage from, or to injure the interests of, the company or its shareholders or its creditors or any other person, whether or not there is any wrongful gain or wrongful loss; (ii) “wrongful gain” means the gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled; (iii) “wrongful loss” means the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing is legally entitled.” 12. The claim of the petitioner is that there is no ingredients of fraud in the allegation of the complainant and therefore, Section 447 of the Act of 2013 is not attracted in the case. from the definition of “fraud” as provided in the explanation (i) of Section 447 of the Act of 2013, the fraud in relation to affairs of the company, includes any act, omission, concealment of any fact or abuse of position committed by any person or any other person with the connivance in any manner, with intent to deceive, to gain undue advantage from, or to injure the interest of, the company, whether or not any wrongful gain or wrongful loss. From the documents annexed with the petition, it transpires that the petitioner is in possession of the subject quarters for which the respondent issued various notices and the proceeding under the Act of 1971 was also drawn, in which the order was passed on 15-09-2015. Thus, the petitioner is in wrongful gain as he is in possession of the subject quarter without any lawful authority and injures the interest of the respondent. From the complaint, there is prima facie material to register the complaint and to proceed with the trial of the case. 10 13. Another submission made by the petitioner is that he is not the employee or officer of the respondent SECL and therefore, the offence cannot be registered under Section 452 of the Act of 2013. The respondent pleaded in their complaint that the subject quarters were allotted to the Trade Union for their functioning, and after the lapse of time, the registration of the Trade Union was cancelled, and the relationship between the respondent SECL and the Trade Union came to an end. Thereafter, the Trade Union ought to have vacated the subject quarters, but did not. The petitioner is claiming through the Trade Union as its office bearer, but the said Trade Union is not in existence. Therefore, the petitioner is in wrongful possession of the subject quarter and makes himself liable to be vacation of the subject premises. 14. In the matter of “Gopika Chandrabhushan Saran and Anr. V. M/s. XLO India Ltd. and Anr.”, AIR 2009 SC 2032, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:- “16. The capacity, right to possession and the duration of occupation are all features which are integrally blended with the employment. Once the right of the employee or the officer to retain the possession of the property, either on account of termination of services, retirement, resignation or death, gets extinguished, they (persons in occupation) are under an obligation to return the property back to the company and on their failure to do so, they render themselves liable to be dealt with under Section 630 of the Act for retrieval of the possession of the property. 17. The ratio laid down in the above said two cases makes it explicitly clear that Section 630 of the Act will cover within its ambit not only the employee or officer but also the past employee or the past officer or the 11 heirs of the deceased employee or anyone claiming under them in possession of the property. The legal heirs or representatives in possession of the property acquire the right of occupancy in the property of the company, by virtue of being family members of the employee or the officer during the employment of the employee or the officer and not on any independent account. They, therefore, derive their colour and content from the employee or the officer only and have no independent or personal right to hold on to the property of the company. 18. The case in hand is the one which falls under the first part of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 630. The suit premises was allotted to Mr. C. B. Saran, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, in his capacity as a Managing Director of the respondent company. The appellants herein had no direct relationship with the respondent company. Both of them came in possession of the suit premises through the original allottee of the said premises, namely, Mr. C. B. Saran, who has since died. The company has every right and jurisdiction to preserve its property and to see that the same is not used for purposes other than the one expressed or directed in the articles of association of the company. On a careful reading of the ratio of the decisions in Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain (supra) and Lalita Jalan (supra), it is explicitly clear that they are squarely applicable to facts of the present case. When the legal representatives of the original allottee withhold the property wrongfully the company is entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 630 of the Act so as to retrieve the property being withheld wrongfully. The above quoted decisions have also laid down that all those who have come in possession of the premises with the express or implied consent of the employee and have not vacated the premises would be withholding the delivery of the property to the company and, therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 630 of the Act as is done in the present case.” 12 15. Applying the aforesaid principles of law and the provisions of Section 447 and 452 of the Act of 2013, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, has rightly applied its jurisdiction to register the complaint filed by the respondent SECL and, after taking cognizance of the offence, issued summons to the accused persons. There is no illegality or irregularity in the proceedings of the learned trial court. 16. The petitioner cited the judgments of “Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.”, order dated 02-09-2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, “Naresh Kumar and Another v. The State of Karnataka and Anr.”, order dated 12-03-2024, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1570/2021, “Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another”, order dated 06-02-2024, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 13485/2023, and “Vijay Kumar Ghai and Ors. V. The State of West Bengal and Ors.”, order dated 22-03-2022, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 463/2022, are relates with the offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1908, and the facts and consideration in those cases are different then the facts and issue involved in the present case, and therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner from those judgments. 17. For the foregoing consideration, this court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the impugned order in the present petition. The petition is therefore dismissed. 13 18. The record of the trial court should be sent back immediately, along with a copy of this order for information and further proceedings. The learned trial court is directed to decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved