The court held that allegations made in a petition of complaint must be read as a whole and that the court should not quash a proceeding unless the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

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 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 o