Sawhney Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs State
2004 Latest Caselaw 1160 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. By this petition under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C), M/s. Sawhney Builders Pvt. Ltd. have challenged the order dated 17.12.2002 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint for the offences under Sections 403/441/506/34 IPC. This order arises out of the second complaint on similar grounds against the Chairman and A.G.M. SBI. The complaint against the former Chairman and AGM, SBI has been quashed by a separate order dated 12.10.2004 passed in Cr.M.C.2714/99 titled M.S. Verma and Anr. Vs. State.

2. Facts briefly, are as follow. On 21.3.2002, petitioners filed a complaint against the State Bank of India (for short, SBI"), through its Chairman Mr. Janki Vallabh, Mr. Harbans Lal-Chief General Manager and Mr. Naveen Sethi-AGM (Trg), alleging that the complainant-Company is engaged in providing services of the Air-Conditioning, and lift in buildings. The facility was provided at C-21, Mathura Road, Friends Colony, New Delhi, where Residential Staff Training Centre of SBI was functioning. The lease agreement, initially was for a period of five years. After the expiry of the lease agreement, the Bank was asked to hand over the property to the complainant which was not given despite notice. On 15.8.1998 operation of the AC plant and the lift was stopped by the contractor; three rooms, where the AC plant was located, were locked and the keys were handed over to the Management of the complainant. It is alleged, that the locks were broken by the officials of the bank and AC Plant and lift were illegally put into operation by the then Chairman and AGM of the Bank. On 17.8.1998 it was pleaded that an employee of the contractor was abused and intimidated by the officers of the Bank. The complaint under sections 403, 441, 506 IPC against the earlier Chairman and the AGM of SBI, was filed, who have since retired.

3. It was pleaded that in November, 2001, State Bank of India started removing their furniture and movable items from the premises, without intimation to the complainant. The complainant company wrote a letter dated 27.11.2001 to the present AGM, SBI asking them not to remove anything from the premises, without clearance certificate from the complainant company. Mr. Naveen Sethi, employee of the Bank refused to accept the letter, and threatened the Security Officer, Col. Sethi; he was asked to leave the office or to face dire consequences. It was pleaded that the Bank by vacating the premises without no dues certificate from the owner, committed the offence under sections 403/441. Learned trial court dismissed the complaint. This order is under challenge.

4. I have been taken through the impugned order and find no illegality or impropriety to warrant interference by this Court. To say the least the complaint is sheer abuse of the process of the Court.

5. Dismissed.