O. P GARG, J. On the complaint of opposite party No. 2, namely, Hindalco Industries Ltd, the applicant-Shivaji Singh has been summoned under Section 630 of the Companies Act by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. By means of this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , it is prayed that the complaint case No. 674 of 1993 filed on 19-10-1993 be quashed and further proceedings in the case be stayed. 2. Affidavits have been exchanged. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. on behalf of the State as well as Sri N. B. Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 3. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Geography on 19-8-1981 in an institution namely, Hindalco Vidya Niketan, Renoo Koot, run by the opposite party No. 2. The applicant was confirmed on the post on 25-8-1982 He was given senior scale. The services of the applicant were terminated on 10-4-1993. Soon thereafter, the post was advertised. The applicant filed a writ petition No. 18695 of 1993 before this court. The operation of the termination order was stayed on 9-7-1993. This order was continued and extended from time to time. The applicant, it appears, was not provided the teaching work as he was doing before, and consequently a contempt petition No. 1391 of 1993 was filed on which notices were issued. Admittedly, the contempt petition has been dismissed. On 8-10-1993, the stay order dated 9-7-1993 was vacated. Thereafter, it has not been extended though the applicant has applied for staying the order dated 10-4-1993 afresh. 4. Alter the vacation of the stay order, the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act alleging that the applicant is in illegal occupation and possession of quarter No. GG- 24, Hindalco Colony and, therefore, criminal proceedings under the aforesaid Section be initiated against him. The ground taken was that the applicant was allowed to occupy the said quarter as he was in the employment of the company and that since he has ceased to be in the employment, the company is entitled to retrieve the possession of the quarter. 5. The ground taken was that the applicant was allowed to occupy the said quarter as he was in the employment of the company and that since he has ceased to be in the employment, the company is entitled to retrieve the possession of the quarter. 5. On behalf of the applicant, it was urged that the question whether the services of the applicant have been properly and legally terminated or not, is to be canvassed and decided in the writ petition No. 18695 of 1993, which is still pending and since the question of cessation of the relationship of master and servant is in dispute, the applicant cannot be prosecuted by means of a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act. 6. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 pointed out that there is no stay order subsisting in the aforesaid writ petition and since the stay order dated 9-7-1993 has come to an end, the order of termination has become final and, therefore, complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act is maintainable. It was further urged that this court has allowed the opposite party No. 2 to initiate proceedings for eviction of the applicant according to law. A reference was made to the order dated 6- 12-1993 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, which runs as follows: "meanwhile the petitioner will not be evicted from the premises in which the petitioner is residing, but this order will not create any hindrance in the way of the respondents in taking any other legal action in accordance with the provision of law for evicting the petitioner in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. Sd/-R. B. M. Dt. 6-12-1993. " 7. From the above order, it is apparent that the opposite party No. 2 is entitled to institute a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act against the applicant. Even otherwise, it may be pointed out that until the termination/dismissal order is set aside, it holds good and effective for all purposes and initiation of proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act cannot be termed as abuse of process of the court. Even otherwise, it may be pointed out that until the termination/dismissal order is set aside, it holds good and effective for all purposes and initiation of proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act cannot be termed as abuse of process of the court. Without burdening this judgment with plathora of rulings on the point, suffice is to say that the cobweb around the controversy has been cleared by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Krishna Suhi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. , and another. AIR 1987 S. C. 2245 and Atul Mathur v. Arul Kalra 1989 (3) Com LJ 127. A similar controversy was raised and considered in Misri Lai Shah and others v. The State of U. P. and others 1994 A. C. (31) page 191. The pendency of the writ petition in which termination has been challenged by the applicant cannot act as a bar to the institution of the criminal prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act. In the instant case, as this court itself has permitted in the pending writ petition that the opposite party No. 2 may take recourse to such proceedings, as may be warranted under the law, for the applicants eviction, the present proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act is maintainable. 8. In view of above facts, inherent powers of this court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked. The application is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed. .