https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110674 The High Court affirmed the Magistrate's decision to acquit the accused, rejecting the appeal challenging the restoration of property to the complainant. The Court held that the Magistrate lacked authority to order possession restoration while the matter was pending in a civil court. It was found that the accused believed they had the right to occupy the property until they received another flat as per an agreement, negating claims of wrongful possession. The Court emphasized that civil suits should determine possession issues, not criminal proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act. en-us Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:18:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110674 The High Court affirmed the Magistrate's decision to acquit the accused, rejecting the appeal challenging the restoration of property to the complainant. The Court held that the Magistrate lacked authority to order possession restoration while the matter was pending in a civil court. It was found that the accused believed they had the right to occupy the property until they received another flat as per an agreement, negating claims of wrongful possession. The Court emphasized that civil suits should determine possession issues, not criminal proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110674