JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision arises out of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of proceeding being Case No. C/1206 of 1992 now pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta. 2. The petitioner Mr. Kishore Rajaram Chhabria is the erstwhile Managing Director of M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. As Managing Director of the company, the petitioner was given residential accommodation at the first floor of premises No. 52/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta under the terms of a contract by and between the Company and the petitioner on 25th April, 1992. The said company at a Board meeting passed a resolution withdrawing from the petitioner the powers of the post of Managing Director. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, the said company caused a notice dated 10th June, 1992 to be served upon the petitioner asking him to vacate the residential accommodation given to him as the Managing Director. On receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 10th June, 1992, the petitioner asked the company's representatives to attend his residence on 27.1.1992 so that vacant and peaceful possession could be made over to the Company. On the date so fixed, two duly authorised representatives of the company took charge of the company's assets and granted a receipt signed by both the representatives. After four months, the petitioner has been served with a notice enclosing a petition of complaint for commission of an offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case has been registered as C/No. 1206 of 1992. 3. According to the petitioner, the allegations of theft etc. made in the petition of complaint are totally false, frivolous and fabricated. It has been further stated that the allegations made in the petition are so patently absurd and inherently improbable and inconsistent that interference by this Court is imperative to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of law. The petitioner has further submitted that the impugned proceeding suffers from lack of credibility and is apparently an off-shoot of the dispute between the petitioner and his elder brother. The petitioner has therefore come to this Court for quashing the proceeding now pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta as stated above. 4. The petitioner has further submitted that the impugned proceeding suffers from lack of credibility and is apparently an off-shoot of the dispute between the petitioner and his elder brother. The petitioner has therefore come to this Court for quashing the proceeding now pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta as stated above. 4. The case is stoutly contested by the opposite party. 5. The only point for consideration as to whether there is any ground for interference by this Court in revision and for quashing the proceeding as prayed for. 6. Mr. Dilip Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that a perusal of paragraph 9 of the petition of complaint (Annexure 'B' to the revision application) shows that the alleged dishonest removal of the articles as mentioned in Annexure 'F took.place on 27th June, 1992. The learned Advocate has also drawn the attention to the Court, to the initial Ezahar made by the complainant on 9.9.1992 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta in connection with this case. Mr. Duna submitted that there is no whisper within the four corners of the initial Ezahar that there was any dishonest removal of the articles as mentioned in Annexure 'F' by the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Advocate has submitted that the issuance of a process by the learned Magistrate under Section 380 of the I.P.C. is an example a mechanical exercise of discretion by the learned Magistrate. The learned Advocate has further submitted that so far as the allegations for an offence under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act is concerned, it is sufficient to say that if it is the case of the complainant that there was a theft in respect of the articles mentioned in Annexure 'F' then there cannot be an offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act, because under this Section the offence is constituted by wrongfully withholding the possession or having any such property in one's possession, or knowingly applying it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorised by the Companies Act. So, if the property was in the possession of the petitioner as required under Section 630 of the Companies Act, there was no question of commission of an offence under Section 380 of the I.P.C. 7. The next point which has been argued by Mr. So, if the property was in the possession of the petitioner as required under Section 630 of the Companies Act, there was no question of commission of an offence under Section 380 of the I.P.C. 7. The next point which has been argued by Mr. Dutta is that according to the averments made in the petition of complaint and the letter dated 8th July, 1992 written by the Solicitor of the Company to the petitioner(vide: internal page 32 of the revisional application), the said articles were removed by the petitioner, his wife and his uncle on 27th June, 1992. Mr. Dutta has submitted that the articles as mentioned in Annexure 'include one 300 Ltr. 2-door Allwyn Refrigerator, one V.C.R., one Sony T.V., one Big Ganesh Idol of Stone, Stereo, Sony Tape deck amplifier with 2" Sony & Speakers, one Tulu Water pump and 111 bottles of costly foreign liquor. Mr. Dutta has submitted that this is patently absurd for the three persons to remove the articles mentioned in Annexure "F" physically from the premises on 27.6.92 before the eyes of the two representatives of the Company and other severe l staff members of the Company posted at the Official residence of the Managing Director. Accordingly Mr. Dutta has referred to a case reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947 (Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi& Ors.) wherein it has been Laid down that in a case where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, then the Court will quash the order of the Learned Magistrate issuing process against the accused. 8. In the case relied upon by Mr. Dutta, the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing a process against the accused person was well reasoned and it took into consideration the allegations in the complaint as also the evidence adduced in support of it. On a consideration of the evidence the learned Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case against the accused person was made out and he accordingly issued process against them. 9. On a consideration of the evidence the learned Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case against the accused person was made out and he accordingly issued process against them. 9. The High Court went into the whole history of the case, examined the merits of the evidence, the contradictions and improbabilities and after a detailed discussion not only of the materials produced but also all the documents which had been filed by the defence, when the matter was pending under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and held that the order of the Magistrate was illegal and was fit to be quashed. According to the Supreme Court the approach of the High Court was entirely wrong. 10. Mr. Ashok Kr. Sen, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Opposite party has submitted that the petition of complaint has got to be read as a whole and not piece-meal. The learned Counsel has read out paragraphs Nos. 9 and 10 of the petition of complaint and submitted that an intelligent reading of the petition of complaints a whole entirely indicates that the persistent case of the case of the company is that the articles as described in Annexure 'F' were removed by the petitioner within a certain span of time but it was not possible for the company to say exactly on what date the removal took place. Mr. Sen has further submitted that the last sentence of paragraph 9 merely states that the dishonest removal took place on 27.6.1992 as on that day the possession was delivered by the petitioner to the agents of the company. Mr. Sen on analysing the initial Ezahar of the complainant before the Court of the learned Magistrate has submitted that after departure of the petitioner from the flat there was an inventory of the articles by the internal auditors and thereafter it was ascertained that certain articles as mentioned in Annexure 'F' were missing. The articles were given to the petitioner and he did not deliver those articles to the company. This in substance constitutes the element of theft and theft is nothing but depriving the rightful possession of the owner with dishonest intention. Therefore, according to Mr. Sen, all the elements of theft had been delineated at the initial ezahar by the complainant. 11. It is true that the pleadings in a case have got to be construed as a whole. Therefore, according to Mr. Sen, all the elements of theft had been delineated at the initial ezahar by the complainant. 11. It is true that the pleadings in a case have got to be construed as a whole. In a criminal case before process is issued in a complaint case, the learned Magistrate has to peruse the petition of complaint and initial Ezahar of the complainant and other witnesses, if any, examined on behalf of the complainant. 11. In this case, the learned Magistrate on perusal of the petition of complaint as a whole and the examination of the complainant on oath before him was pleased to find that there was a prima facie case under Section 380 of the I.P.C. 12. The point of absurdity and inherent improbability which has been raised by Mr. Dutta, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has to he considered in the proper perspective. It was not inherently impossible for the outgoing Managing Director to remove the articles as alleged in the petition of complaint during certain spa n of time before his departure on 27th June, 1992 from the flat. If it was the case of the complainant that all the articles of Annexure 'F' were removed on 27th June, 1992 then I would have agreed with Mr. Dutta but that is not the case of the complainant herein. Therefore, I cannot agree with the contention of Mr. Dutta. 13. Mr. Sen, learned Senior Counsel has drawn my attention to paragraph 108 of Bhajan Lal's case reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 . In that paragraph at page 629 have been listed categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein the extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. 14. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that it is not impossible to Laid down any precise clearly defined and sufficiently chanalised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powers should be exercised. 14. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that it is not impossible to Laid down any precise clearly defined and sufficiently chanalised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powers should be exercised. Out of the categories listed here, category No. 5 deals with the cases where allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherent and improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused. 15. Mr. Dutia, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner wants to come under this sub-paragraph. But I have already explained above that this is not a case where it can be alleged that there is any inherent improbability or absurdity in the prosecution case as made out in the petition of complaint and the initial Ezalurr of the complaint. 16. The last point which has been argued by Mr. Dutta requires a hit discussion here. According to Mr. Dutta, the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot go together with an offence under Section 380 of the I.P.C. 17. Mr. Sen, learned Senior Advocate submits that the Companies Act has created a special offence and it cannot be argued that as this is a special offence, it cannot go with the offence under the General Law of the Land as adumbrated under Section of the I.P.C. Taking away of the articles of the company as alleged, constitutes both an offence under Section 380 of the I.P.C. and an offence under Section 630(1)(h) of the Companies Act because of the special relationship created under the scheme of the Companies Act between the company and the Managing Director. Taking away of the articles as alleged amounts to deprivation of the possession of the company of the said articles by the Ex-Director with a dishonest intention and therefore this can constitute an offence of theft not with standing the fact that the Ex-Managing Director was in lawful possession of the articles during his tenure as Managing Director of the Company. 18. Therefore, I find no substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Dilip Dutta with reference to this point also. 19. 18. Therefore, I find no substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Dilip Dutta with reference to this point also. 19. In view of the discussions made above, I am constrained to hold that there is no merit in the application which should be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed on contest.Petition dismissed. *******