JUDGEMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) for quashing the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nazira, Sivsagar (hereinafter the Magistrate, for short) whereby the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner Smt. Rumi Bora (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act of 2013 for short). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the subsequent orders passed after 15.02.2023 in connection with the same case i.e. CR Case No. 07/2023. 2. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in the aforementioned case, allowing the interim prayer of the complainant/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the complaint) under Section 452 (2) of the Act of 2013 directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter allotted to her husband incidental to his service. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate inter-alia alleging that the petitioner was the wife of the erstwhile employee Dino Nath Bora. He was working as B Grade staff in the Tea Garden since 01.06.1980 and he retired from service on 01.09.2011. Incidental to his service, the employee Dino Nath Bora during his lifetime was allotted a house at Suntok Tea Estate but after retirement, the employee had to vacate his house. The petitioner along with the inmates disagreed to vacate the company’s quarter allotted to her husband even after retirement of her husband. 4. Vide the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 cognizance was taken and summonses were issued against the petitioner who appeared before the Trial Court. On her appearance, offences were explained under Section 452 of the Act of 2013 and the case was fixed for evidence. Meanwhile, an interim application was filed by the complainant under Section 452 (2) of the Act of 2013 and vide the impugned order dated 24.01.2024, the interim application filed by the complainant was allowed and the petitioner was directed to vacate her residential house. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she is in no way connected with this case. 6. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she is in no way connected with this case. 6. Petitioner’s case is that she is an 80 years old ailing lady who is suffering from dementia and she is living with her two sons and her daughters-in-law in the Village: Suntok, Sub-Division: Nazira, Mouza: Dhupator, under Nazira Circle, in the district of Sivsagar. 7. Apart from her present residence, the petitioner has no other accommodation. 8. It is contended by the petitioner that her father-in-law namely Late Tarani Kanta Bora was the Godown In-Charge of Suntok Tea Estate under the Assam Company during British period. Late Tarani Kanta Bora during his lifetime used to reside in his house situated at Village : Nagaon, Sub-Division : Nazira, Mouza : Dhupator, Under Nazira Circle, in Sivsagar district, appertaining to Dag No. 784, Government Patta land which was a ceiling surplus plot of land. 9. It is further submitted that after death of Tarani Kanta Bora, his son Dina Nath Bora i.e. the petitioner’s husband was appointed as House Head in Suntak Tea Estate on 12.12.1972 and he was attending his duties in the Tea Estate from his father’s house as described above.His father’s house was standing over a plot of land at Village : Nagaon Patta No. TP-1 Government land, under Dag No. 739. 10. The petitioner’s husband finally retired on superannuation from service on 01.09.2011 from Suntak Tea Estate, which was under the name and style of General Fiber Dealer’s Pvt. Ltd. at that relevant point of time. On 05.04.2018, petitioner’s husband passed away leaving behind the petitioner and her two sons. 11. It is further submitted that on 29.10.1995 the aforementioned plot of land where the petitioner was residing with her family members was allotted in the name of petitioner’s husband Dino Nath Bora by the Government as the original pattadar. It is contended that the complainant with an ulterior motive and mala fide tried to dispossess the petitioner in order to grab the land where the petitioner was residing and lodged the instant case against her by suppressing material facts. 12. The petitioner has vehemently denied that she has been wrongfully occupying the Company’s quarter. It is further contended that the complainant’s Company did not provide any retirement benefits to the petitioner and had also disconnected the electricity connection to the petitioner’s household. 12. The petitioner has vehemently denied that she has been wrongfully occupying the Company’s quarter. It is further contended that the complainant’s Company did not provide any retirement benefits to the petitioner and had also disconnected the electricity connection to the petitioner’s household. The petitioner along with some similarly situated dwellers of other households in the same locality approached the concerned authority for restoration of electricity supply. The concerned authority held an inquiry into the matter. During the process of inquiry, a report was submitted regarding the status of land of the concerned Mandal as well as the other authorities whereupon the concerned Circle Officer Nazira Revenue Circle submitted a report dated 06.02.2023 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Nazira stating that the status of land where the petitioner was residing is at Village : Nagaon, Appertaining to Dag No. 739/P, Patta No. TP-1. 13. It is submitted that the original pattadar is the Government and the aforesaid plot of land is a ceiling surplus plot. The petitioner has further contended that the complainant Company tried to dispossess the dwellers namely Lutfur Rahman, Gunadhar Tamuli, Sidheswar Buragohai residing within the same locality of the Government allotted land and the complainant’s Company in order to grab the plot of land lodged cases against them which are registered as : C.R. Case No. 5/2023, C.R. Case No. 6/2023, C.R. Case No. 8/2023 and, C.R. Case No. 9/2023 pending in the Court below. 14. It is further contended that the complainant had filed a case before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Karmup (M) against the petitioner for the same cause of action, registered as SPL (Companies Act) Case No. 4/2021 but the case was withdrawn by the complainant and surprisingly, the instant case was subsequently filed and thus, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 15. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 1 has raised serious objection. It is submitted that the order is not required to be interfered as a judicious order has been passed by the learned Magistrate. It has been falsely stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land as the land rightfully belongs to the Tea Company represented by the respondent No. 1. It has been falsely stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 has illegally tried to oust a landholder with a valid settlement order from the Government. It has been falsely stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land as the land rightfully belongs to the Tea Company represented by the respondent No. 1. It has been falsely stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 has illegally tried to oust a landholder with a valid settlement order from the Government. The petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition as she was not even an employee of the company, but she is the wife of the deceased employee. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has drawn the attention of this Court to the Annexure-5 series, more particularly, the submission of report regarding electricity connection to the household of Suntak area vide reference letter No. NZR/DEV-2R/VOL-V/2012/5L dated 04.02.2023 wherein the letter No. NRC/MISC/1/PT 2019-20 dated 06.02.2023 clearly reflects that the petitioner is a resident of ceiling surplus land appertaining to Dag No. 739/P, Patta No.-T.P.-1 and the original pattadar is shown as the Government of Assam. This document clearly reflects that the petitioner is not the owner of the land. 17. Heard Ms. N. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 18. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that trial is pending and at the stage of evidence, the petitioner has been directed to vacate her residence before any final outcome of the trial. The petitioner has admitted that she was not the employee and thus, the respondent has no locus standi to oust her from the premises. Annexure-4 clearly reveals that the Suntak Tea Estate is not the owner of the land. The respondent No. 1, without proving their ownership over the land cannot evict the petitioner from the company quarter. The land is a ceiling surplus land and the ceiling surplus land was allotted to the petitioner’s husband. 19. It is submitted that the Trial Court has passed an order without jurisdiction as the respondent is not the owner of the land and it is evident from the settlement order marked as Annexure-4 of the petition, which is in favour of the petitioner’s late husband which clearly reflects the Dag No. as 783 of a plot of land ad measuring 2 Bighas 18 Lechas of Village –Nagaon, Mouza – Dhupdhora. 20. 20. Against this submission, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has argued that the settlement order is relating to a plot of land appertaining to Dag No. 783 whereas the electricity reconnection order of Annexure-5 series dated 06.02.2023 clearly reveals that the petitioner is in occupation of a plot of land covered by Dag No. 739 and not by Dag No. 783. Thus, the petitioner has no right over the plot of land as has been claimed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner’s husband and father-in-law were employees of Suntak Tea Estate and the address is clearly reflected in Annexure-4 as Suntak. 21. Flaying this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that just because the land is in the periphery of the Suntak Tea Estate, the respondent No. 1 cannot claim his right over the ceiling surplus land belonging to the Government of Assam. The petitioner has relied on the documents (Annexure-5 series) which is a detailed report relating to reconnection of electricity for ten families in Suntak Tea Estate. 22. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexure-5 is a report forwarded to the SDO (Civil) Nazira that all the ten families who are aggrieved by the disconnection of electricity have submitted their land ownership report before the Mandal for verification and reconnection of the electricity supply disconnected by the respondent No. 1 and, the petitioner’s husband was one of the complainants which includes ten families, who are aggrieved by the disconnection of electricity supply to their households by the respondent Company. The families including the petitioner have submitted documents which reveal that the land with their residences standing thereon do not belong to Suntak Tea Estate. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent has laid stress in his argument that a report to the SDO by the Labour Inspector, Nazira (Annexure-5) does not prove ownership over a plot of land included within the Suntak Tea Estate. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent has laid stress in his argument that a report to the SDO by the Labour Inspector, Nazira (Annexure-5) does not prove ownership over a plot of land included within the Suntak Tea Estate. To the queries raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the settlement order dated 1995 has not been challenged by the respondent No. 1, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that there is no question of challenging the settlement order as the Dag No. in the settlement order vis-à- vis Dag No. of the electricity reconnection in favour of the petitioner is not similar as the settlement order, Annexure-4, reveals the Dag No. to be 783 whereas Dag No. of the electricity reconnection order dated 06.02.2023 is not similar, being Dag No. 739/P. 24. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.01.2024 in CR No. 7/2023 has observed that : “…The accused person did not clearly deny being an ex-employee of the complainant company and that he never possessed the quarter of the company during his service tenure. However, it is to be noted that the onus is upon the complainant to prove its case. It is also to be noted that the same shall be decided after examination of the witnesses of both sides at the end of the trial. At this stage, I am of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prima facie show that the accused person is wrongfully withholding the property of the complainant company which is causing serious hardship to the complainant. Further, the learned counsel for the accused person argued that the complainant has not furnished any land documents to prove the title of the property in the name of the complainant company. The land over which the residential quarter is located does not belong to the complainant and the complainant has to prove its title before seeking for any kind of interim relief. Per contra, the complainant contended that the complainant is the owner of the land over which the company is established. Further the requirement of proving of title of the property is not necessary during seeking for interim relief as mandated by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case. Per contra, the complainant contended that the complainant is the owner of the land over which the company is established. Further the requirement of proving of title of the property is not necessary during seeking for interim relief as mandated by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case. The issue related to the title of the property has also been discussed in the abovementioned case by the Apex Court wherein it is observed that, "Section 630 nowhere requires that the company should have title to the property. The emphasis is on whether the accused has obtained wrongful possession of the property which defeats the company's lawful right of exclusive possession, even though the property as such may not belong to the company but to a third-party landlord or licensor. The term "property of the company" has to be construed widely having regard to the beneficial object of the section". Taking into note the observation laid down by the Apex Court, it is not mandatory to prove the company's title to the property to seek for relief u/S 452(2) of Companies Act, 2013....” 25. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. Learned Trial Court has recorded sound reasonings while disposing of the petition vide order dated 24.01.2024. The petitioner has admitted that her husband as well as her father-in-law, were employees under the Suntak Tea Company but she has denied that her residence is a property of the Suntak Tea Company. The petitioner is silent about the ownership of the building standing over the plot of land, which the petitioner claims to be a ceiling surplus land and not belonging to Suntak Tea Company. 26. Respondent No. 1 representing the Suntak Tea Company has emphasized that the residence occupied by the petitioner belongs to the Tea Company, which the petitioner has not categorically denied. The petitioner has only denied that the land does not belong to the respondent No. 1. 27. The provisions of Section 452 (2) of the Act of 2013 reads: “452. 26. Respondent No. 1 representing the Suntak Tea Company has emphasized that the residence occupied by the petitioner belongs to the Tea Company, which the petitioner has not categorically denied. The petitioner has only denied that the land does not belong to the respondent No. 1. 27. The provisions of Section 452 (2) of the Act of 2013 reads: “452. (2) The Court trying an offence under sub-section (1) may also order such officer or employee to deliver up or refund, within a time to be fixed by it, any such property or cash wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied, the benefits that have been derived from such property or cash or in default, to undergo imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. [Provided that the imprisonment of such officer or employee, as the case may be, shall not be ordered for wrongful possession or withholding of a dwelling unit, if the court is satisfied that the company has not paid to that officer or employee, as the case may be, any amount relating to— (a) provident fund, pension fund, gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of its officers or employees, maintained by the company; (b) compensation or liability for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) in respect of death or disablement.” 28. This petition is filed under Section 482 of CrPC. At this stage, the evidence is not taken into consideration. This case was fixed for evidence after the order dated 24.01.2024 was passed which reflects that trial was progressing in this case. At this stage, there is no sufficient material to conclusively decide that the order of cognizance was wrongfully passed by the learned Trial Court and so, this Court is hesitant to interfere with the order dated 15.02.2023. The petitioner has not submitted with clarity that the building standing over the plot of land covered by Dag No. 783 or by Dag No. 739/P rightfully belongs to her or she is the owner of the building standing over the aforementioned plot of land at Suntak. The petitioner has also not denied with clarity that the building where the petitioner is residing does not belong to respondent No. 1. 29. The petitioner has also not denied with clarity that the building where the petitioner is residing does not belong to respondent No. 1. 29. It appears that after properly assessing the evidence, the Trial Court will be able to decide whether an order is required to be passed for vacating the residence allegedly occupied by the petitioner illegally. At this stage, there is no bar to pass an order to vacate the residence during the pendency of trial but it appears that such an order may lead to multiplicity of proceeding and the core question is better to be resolved after the final outcome of the case. 30. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to prevent the abuse of the process of Court, I deem it appropriate to set aside only that part of the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Cclass, Nazira, Sivsagar whereby and where-under the petitioner is directed to vacate the quarter allotted to her husband Dino Nath Bora during his lifetime by the respondent No. 1. The order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nazira, Sivsagar is not interfered with by this Court. The Trial Court to make every endeavour to dispose of the CR Case No. 07/2023 as expeditiously as possible. 31. In terms of the above observation, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of.