JUDGMENT - R.G. VAIDYANATHA, J. :---This is a petition for quashing the issue of process in Criminal Case No. 65/5/87 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Bombay. Heard both the sides. 2. The first respondent-original complainant filed a private complaint in the Court below against the petitioner for an offence alleged to have been committed under section 630 of the Companies Act. The learned Magistrate issued the process to the accused for the said offence. Being aggrieved by the issue of process, the accused has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the process. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the dispute between the parties regarding the flats in question is a bona fide civil dispute and this cannot be agitated in a Criminal Court. He, therefore, submitted that the process issued in the case is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Counsel, appearing for the first respondent contended that there is no bona fide dispute between the parties and that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offence and issued process and this is not a fit case for this Court to interfere at this stage. 4. The allegations in the complaint, which are necessary for our present purposes are as follows : The complainant is Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. which is a Public Limited Company. The petitioner-accused was the General Manager of the Company. According to the complainant, the premises in question bearing Flat Nos. 5 and 6 in plot No. 615, Jamshedji Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Bombay 400 014, were taken on lease in 1970 by the previous company ESSO. That the said company was nationalised and the petitioner is the successor in interest of ESSO Company. It is stated that the ESSO company had taken the premises in question on leave and licence basis under an agreement dated 5/8/1970. The previous company had allotted the said flats to the accused for being in possession of the same to be co-terminus with his employment. That the accused retired from the complainant company after attaining superannuation on 1/4/1987. That the accused has refused to vacate the premises inspite of repeated letters by the company. It is also alleged that the accused has taken a false defence in his reply letters. That the accused retired from the complainant company after attaining superannuation on 1/4/1987. That the accused has refused to vacate the premises inspite of repeated letters by the company. It is also alleged that the accused has taken a false defence in his reply letters. It is, therefore, alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 630 of the Companies Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced some documents in support of his defence to show that the petitioner is agitating a bona fide civil dispute. It is also brought to my notice that the company separately took eviction proceedings against the accused under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and the competent authority under the Act has passed an order of eviction which has now been challenged by the accused in an appeal which is pending before the Principal Judge of City Civil Court. It is well settled that for quashing the process at the instance of the accused, the Court has to see only the allegations in the complaint and the documents and the evidence produced in support of the complaint and then find out whether any criminal offence is made out or not. The defence version or the defence documents cannot be considered at this stage. The Apex Court has pointed out in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1947 that at this stage the Court cannot consider the defence of the accused and the defence documents. Similar view is taken by the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1379. It is, therefore, seen that the position of law is that the Court will have to consider only the allegations in the complaint and the materials produced by the complainant to find out whether any criminal offence is made out for which the issuance of the process is justified or not. If on reading the allegations in the complaint and the materials produced by the complainant, it is found that no criminal offence is made out or if the defence of bona fide civil dispute can be spelt out from those materials, then certainly this Court can quash the proceedings. 5. In the present case the allegations in the complaint show that the complainant company is claiming to be a tenant of the premises in question. 5. In the present case the allegations in the complaint show that the complainant company is claiming to be a tenant of the premises in question. It is further the case of the complainant that the accused has been allotted the premises as an employee of the company. Then the further allegation is that the accused after retirement has refused to vacate the premises. These allegations are prima facie sufficient to bring the offence within the four corners of section 630 of the Companies Act. The defence of the accused now made out in this petition is that he himself was the original tenant of the premises in question though nominally the lease deed was taken in the name of the former company viz. ESSO. The version of the accused, therefore, is that he is in possession of the premises in his own individual rights as a tenant and not as an employee of the company, and therefore, he has not committed any such offence or at any rate there is a bona fide civil dispute between the parties which cannot be agitated in a criminal forum. In the complaint itself there is reference to the defence of the accused and it is clearly mentioned that the accused has taken a false defence in his reply letters. Therefore, the question whether the accused has a defence and whether it is a bona fide dispute or not cannot be considered at this stage from the materials produced before the learned Magistrate. Though a dispute can be spelt out from the allegations in the complaint, at this stage and on the available materials produced in the Court below it is very difficult to say that there is a bona fide civil dispute between the parties in order to stall the criminal proceedings. That is a matter which the learned Magistrate has to decide after hearing both the parties and after recording evidence. 6. That is a matter which the learned Magistrate has to decide after hearing both the parties and after recording evidence. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a decision reported in 1990(1) Maharashtra Law Reports 561 (S.C.) (Damodar Das Jain v. Krishna Charan Chakraborti)3, where the Supreme Court has observed that in a similar case filed under section 630 of the Companies Act, the defence raised by the accused was a bona fide civil dispute and it cannot be decided by a Magistrate and it is only the Civil Court which has jurisdiction to try the same. That was a case where the case ended in conviction of the accused in trial Court, but it was set aside on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that there was a bona fide civil dispute. The same was confirmed by the High Court and also by the Supreme Court. Therefore, we find that was a case where both the parties had placed their cards before the Court and then the question was whether there was a bona fide civil dispute. But in the present case we find, as already stated hereinabove, the defence of the accused has not yet been placed before the trial Court. The defence of the accused to the extent that it is a bona fide civil dispute cannot be spelt out from reading the complaint and the documents produced along with it. Hence it is too premature a stage for this Court to come to a conclusion that the defence raised by the accused is a bona fide civil dispute or not. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 invited my attention to a decision reported in 1989(3) Company Law Journal 127, (Atul Mathur v. Atul Kalra and another)4. That was also a similar case filed by a company under the provisions of section 630 of the Companies Act. The Supreme Court has clearly pointed out that every dispute between the company and the accused cannot be a bona fide dispute. Whether in a given case a bona fide dispute exists or not is a question of fact. In that particular case, the Apex Court observed that the defence raised by the accused was a patently incredible story and cannot be accepted. Whether in a given case a bona fide dispute exists or not is a question of fact. In that particular case, the Apex Court observed that the defence raised by the accused was a patently incredible story and cannot be accepted. If the question whether the dispute is a bona fide one or not is held to be a question of fact as pointed out by the Apex Court, then it has to be held that it is too premature a stage for this Court to interfere at this stage and the parties will have to work out their rights before the trial Court. It is pointed out by a learned Single Judge of this Court in, 65(1989) Company Cases 190, (Padmanabha Subramaniam v. State of Maharashtra)5, that merely because a labour dispute is pending in Labour Court is not a ground to stall the criminal proceedings. The object is that the criminal case should be tried expeditiously and cannot afford the luxury of long drawn litigation like a civil case. The proceedings under section 630 of the Companies Act are meant to be summary proceedings and are to be disposed of early. We cannot allow a criminal case to stay till the Civil Court decides the matter. However, if during the trial in a criminal case, the accused can successfully show that there is a bona fide civil dispute, then certainly the Magistrate will stop the proceedings and direct the parties to agitate their rights in a competent civil forum. But we have not reached that stage in the present case. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to letter of Mr. Krishnamurti, formerly Chairman and Managing Director of the complainant company. No doubt that letter is referred to in para 15 of the complaint. But it is not possible to say whether the company has accepted the genuineness of the letter or not. The allegations in the complaint show that the accused has taken a false defence in Krishnamurti's letter and its contents. Whether the letter is genuine or not and whether the contents of the letter are sufficient to prove the defence version are matters of evidence which cannot be decided at this stage. In my view, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage. All his contentions are left open. Whether the letter is genuine or not and whether the contents of the letter are sufficient to prove the defence version are matters of evidence which cannot be decided at this stage. In my view, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage. All his contentions are left open. It is open to the petitioner to urge all these contentions before the learned Magistrate. Hence in my view this is not a fit case to interfere at this stage. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The order of stay is vacated. The learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial of the case and it is made clear that all the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are left open to be urged before the learned Magistrate according to law. None of the observations made in this order shall influence the learned Magistrate while disposing of the case on merits in accordance with the law. Rule discharged. C.C. expedited. Petition dismissed.