Mr. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent has very fairly and frankly conceded before me that indeed the aforesaid action of the learned trial Magistrate was totally illegal, based as it was without any support or sanc..

Mr. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent has very fairly and frankly conceded before me that indeed the aforesaid action of the learned trial Magistrate was totally illegal, based as it was without any support or sanction from law as well as the established principles of Criminal Jurisprudence. He actually went on to suggest that I should quash in its entirety the action of the learned Magistrate in summoning the petitioner as an accused in the aforesaid case. For whatever has been stated above, and based on the aforesaid reasoning this petition is allowed. The action of the learned trial Magistrate in summoning the petitioner is quashed in its entirety. The petitioner shall not be considered as being an accused in the aforesaid complaint. Court of H.P.This judgment, however, shall not come in the way of the respondent in moving an appropriate application strictly in accordance with the provisions of 1954 Act read with the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning any nominated person or persons as accused representing Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. including the petitioner herein, if respondent satisfies the learned trial Court, based upon all the relevant legal provisions that such person  or persons indeed at the relevant time were in charge of as well as responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of a company. 

On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State. As a matter of fact, this court after issuing notice of motion has passed a specific order that the case was to be adjourned to a date ..

On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State. As a matter of fact, this court after issuing notice of motion has passed a specific order that the case was to be adjourned to a date after the date fixed by this court and therefore, there was no occasion for the trial court to have declared the petitioner proclaimed offender. Thus, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender is prima facie contrary to the orders passed by this court restraining the trial court from passing any order in the case. In view of the settled law that the FIR for an offence under section 186 and other offences closely inter-woven with said offence cannot be registered in view of bar under section 195 (1) Cr.PC, as no complaint has been filed by authorized person in court, the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising there from are ordered to be quashed.

For quashing, the allegations made in the complaint have to be taken on their face value and the defence of the petitioners cannot be looked into in a petition under section

Learned counsel for the petitioners finally contended that the authorities below have failed to consider their own orders and the orders passed by the revenue authorities and therefore, their orders suffer from an error apparent on the face of rec..

Learned counsel for the petitioners finally contended that the authorities below have failed to consider their own orders and the orders passed by the revenue authorities and therefore, their orders suffer from an error apparent on the face of record and thus this court under section 482 Cr.PC has the jurisdiction to correct the orders passed by the learned courts below.  This plea of the petitioners also cannot be accepted as reading of the orders shows that on appreciation of evidence concurrent findings have been recorded by the courts below holding the respondents in exclusive possession. As regards the right of the petitioners to get possession back the remedy is available to them to seek possession in accordance with law. No merit. Dismissed.

In view of the settled provisions of law on this aspect, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the decree of possession in respect of the suit property in their favour against the respondent. The Trial Court has wrongly given its fi..

In view of the settled provisions of law on this aspect, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the decree of possession in respect of the suit property in their favour against the respondent. The Trial Court has wrongly given its finding despite of the settled law on this aspect. In fact, the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to the extent of prayer for grant of decree of possession ought to have been allowed. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC is accordingly allowed. Thus, a decree for possession is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, in respect of the suit property i.e., entire premises S-45, Panchshila Park, New Delhi-110017. The respondents shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the petitioner latest by 31st August, 2014. During this period, the respondents shall not create any third party interest in the suit property. The petitioner for this period would be entitled to recover the market rent when the inquiry under Order 20 CPC would be conducted. As regards damages/mesne profit for occupation, learned Trial Court will hold inquiry under Order 20 CPC and pass appropriate orders.