Allahabad High Court
Smt Rubi Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:172000
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37057 of 2025
Smt Rubi Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, Kripa Shanker Mishra, Surya Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Anil Kumar Ray on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay along with Sri Kripa Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State and Sri Anil Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
3. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that general propose to file as per the instructions received from his client and he does not propose to file any response on the application be decided on the basis of the documents submitted on record. It is consent of the parties that the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
4. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the order dated 29/08/2025 passed by Sessions Judge Prayagraj in criminal revision no. 370/2025 (Smt Rubi Singh vs. State of U.P. and another).
5. The case of the applicant is that the husband of the applicant was an employee of the opposite party no.2 establishment and the husband of the opposite party no.2 since deceased was allotted a residential accommodation, however, he expired thereafter a complaint came to be preferred under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 being Complaint Case No.1953 of 2013, (Hindalco Industries Limited Renukoot Vs. Smt. Rubi Singh) wherein the following relief was sought:-
(A) The accused be summoned and be punished for the violation of the provision of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, and sentence the accused accordingly and the fine, if realized, may be given to the complainant as Compensation for the wrongful use and cost.
(B) The Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the accused to deliver vacant possession of the property i.e. Quarter No.H-223 of the Company at Renukoot to the company within the time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and in default may award imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.
6. An application came to be preferred by the opposite party no.2 under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act for eviction of the applicant from the residential accommodation in question which came to be decided on 8.7.2025 requiring the applicant to vacate the residential accommodation within 15 days against which the applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No.370 of 2025 in which on 28.2.2025 the court of Sessions Judge, Prayagraj proceeded to reject the stay application while fixing the date for hearing of the revision.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that whatever might be the question about the entitlement of the applicant to reside in the quarter in question is a subject matter of the complaint itself and on 8.7.2025 an application preferred by the opposite party no.2 the exercise of Sub-Section (2) of Section 630 of the Companies Act an order came to be passed on 8.7.2025 for evicting the applicant and the same is subject matter of challenge in Criminal Revision No.370 of 2025 then at least some orders ought to be passed on the stay application and it could not have been rejected out-rightly. He has further submitted that according to him the order regarding eviction of the applicant could not have been passed in such a manner in which it has been passed particularly when the same could have been passed only when the complaint stood decided.
8. Sri Anil Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the law in this regard is no more res integra as in Hooghly Mills Company Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and another (2020) 18 SCC 568 the issue with regard to the fact whether an order can be passed under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act prior to the final disposal of the complaint under Section 630(1) of the Companies Act, the matter stands decided that there is no such restriction an order under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act can be passed even before the disposal of the proceedings under Section 630(1) of the Companies Act. He further submits that the applicant has himself vacated the quarter in question.
9. Learned AGA has supported the arguments of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
10. I have heard the heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
11. In the opinion of the Court, once against the order dated 8.7.2025 the applicant himself has preferred a Revision No.370 of 2025 which is pending before the court below thus it would not be appropriate for this Court at this stage to record any definite finding in this regard, however, as suggested by the learned counsel for the applicant and accepted by the counsel for the opposite party no.2, the revision is required to be decided in a time bound manner.
12. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, the application stands disposed of requiring the revisional court to decide the Revision No.370 of 2025 strictly in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments by either of the parties.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.) September 24, 2025 piyush