Case: BIRLA CORPORATION LTD Vs. ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LTD

4. These appeals arise out of the criminal complaint filed by the appellant-Company which belong to Madhav Prasad Birla (MPB) Group, now under the control of respondent No.17- Harshvardhan Lodha who is the son of Rajendra Singh Lodha. The impugned complaint has a background of multitude of litigations filed by the respondents and others. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are that one Priyamvada Devi Birla (PDB) and her husband Madhav Prasad Birla (MPB) were in control and management of several corporate entities which are collectively referred to as the M.P. Birla Group of Industries. They did not have any children. They have created several trusts for undertaking charitable activities in particular on the education side. PDB died on 03.07.2004 and MPB had predeceased her. There is an ongoing dispute over legality of a Will allegedly executed by Priyamvada Devi Birla (PDB) dated 18.04.1999 in favour of Rajendra Singh Lodha and respondent No.17-son of said Rajendra Singh Lodha. On 19.07.2004, a petition was filed by Rajendra Singh Lodha, father of respondent No.17 for grant of probate of the purported Will before the High Court at Calcutta. The Probate Petition has been converted into a testamentary suit for grant of Letters of Administration. Krishna Kumar Birla (KKB), Basant Kumar Birla (BKB), Ganga Prasad Birla (GPB) and Yashovardhan Birla (YB) have filed caveats to oppose the grant of probate of the said Will dated 18.04.1999. The High Court held that Ganga Prasad Birla (GPB) has a caveatable interest and therefore, he has a right to oppose the grant of probate of the said Will. The said testamentary suit is pending. Subsequently, Krishna Kumar Birla (KKB), Kashi Nath Tapuriah (KNT) and Pradip Kumar Khaitan (PKK) filed an application for grant of probate of the 1982 Will of Madhav Prasad Birla (MPB) and Ganga Prasad Birla (GPB); Kashi Nath Tapuriah (KNT) and Pradip Kumar Khaitan (PKK) have filed an application for grant of probate of the 1982 Will of Madhav Prasad Birla (MPB) before the High Court at Calcutta and the said testamentary proceedings are also pending5. Respondents No.1 to 5 who are shareholders of the appellant Company and the trust-Birla Education Trust represented by respondent No.6, had filed a Company petition in CP No.1/2010 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Company Law Board (CLB) alleging oppression and mismanagement being perpetrated by respondent No.17 who is in administration and operation of the said Company. The petition before the CLB has been filed through respondents No.6 to 9 who are shown as accused Nos.6 to 9 in the complaint6. On 24.03.2010, respondents No.12 to 16 have filed five civil suits in the High Court of Calcutta (CS Nos.73-77/2010) under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that in the year 1988, MPB and PDB had created five mutual and reciprocal trusts to leave the estate covered by these trusts for charity. These trusts are said to have been revoked just three days prior to the alleged Will dated 18.04.1999. In the said suits in CS No.73-77/2010, respondents No.12 to 16 have challenged the revocation of the five trusts and prayed for recovery of the properties of the public charity and for enforcement of the public trust obligations of the properties vested in the said five trusts7. The company petition in CP No.1/2010 was filed before CLB (now pending before NCLT) on 10.03.2010. In the said company petition, documents No.1 to 54 have been filed. The advance copy of the company petition and the copies of the documents have been served upon the appellant-Company. Document No.1-Internal Audit Report of the appellant Company was filed in the civil suits filed by respondents No.12 to 16 challenging the revocation of the five trusts created by MPB and PDB. Alleging theft and misappropriation of all the documents No.1 to 54, the appellant Company filed the criminal complaint under Sections 379, 403, 411 read with Section 120B IPC against respondents No.1 to 16 and in the said complaint, appellant was represented by Shri Samir Ganguly who is the Vice-President (Legal) of the appellant-company. The gravamen of the allegations in the complaint is that copies of 54 documents were used before the Company Law Board (CLB) in C.P. No.1 of 2010 filed by respondents No.1 to 5 and Birla Education Trust represented by respondent No.6. Copy of one such document viz., Internal Audit Report of Chanderia Unit of the appellant Company has been filed along with the interlocutory applications filed by respondents No.13 to 16 in the civil suits which were filed challenging the revocation of trusts and for recovery of properties vested in the trust8. Let us understand the array of the parties. Each one of respondents No.1 to 5 are the shareholders of the appellant- Company. Respondent No.6-Pradip Kumar Khaitan is a reputed lawyer and a trustee of Birla Education Trust. Respondent No.7- Akshay Poddar is a Director of respondent No.1-Adventz Investments & Holdings Limited. Respondent No.8-Santosh Kumar Poddar is the Director of respondent No.3-Britex (India) Limited. Respondent No.9-Bal Kishan Toshniwal is the Director of respondent No.2-Govind Promoters Private Limited. Respondent No.10-Birla Buildings Limited is in-charge of the overall maintenance and upkeep of Birla Buildings where the appellant Company is located. Respondent No.11-S. Chakrabarty is the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.10. Respondents No.12 to 16 are ones who have filed the suits CS No.73-77/2010 under Section 92 CPC before the High Court at Calcutta challenging the revocation of the trusts and for recovery of the properties of the public charity. Respondent No.17-Harshvardhan Lodha is the son of late Rajendra Singh Lodha and now the Director-cum-Chairman of the appellant-Company against whom C.P. No.1 of 2010 has been filed9. The allegations in the complaint in brief are as under:The complaint contains a list of fifty-four documents with their brief description given in the Schedule of the complaint. Document No.1 is an Internal Audit Report of Chanderia unit of the appellant Company for the period ending November, 2009. According to the appellant-complainant, keeping in mind the confidential nature of the report, only six copies were made. Out of which, five sets were sent to officers of the Company individually named and one was retained by the Auditor. The Internal Audit Report produced by the respondents is the copy of one of the original five sets which was sent to one Bachh Raj Nahar-Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. It is alleged that respondents No.1 to 16 have stolen/misappropriated documents No.2 to 28 from the appellants premises and that after photocopying the documents, they were kept back in the appellants premises. It is alleged that documents No.29 to 54 have been stolen/misappropriated from the appellants premises and that after photocopying the documents, they were not returned in the appellants premises and the originals are still in the possession of the respondents. Before making the complaint, the complainant-appellant had conducted an internal enquiry to find out how these documents reached the respondents10. These documents have at all times been kept at the registered office of the appellant-Birla Buildings. These documents have restricted access and are meant for the consumption of designated and specified individuals only. These documents include intra-company correspondence, internal audit reports, agreements etc. in relation to operations of the Company. The appellant-complainant alleges that respondents No.1 to 9 and 12 to 16 gained access to the Internal Audit Report and other documents unauthorizedly and illegally with the aid of respondent No.10-Birla Buildings Limited and respondent No.11-S. Chakrabarty, CEO who are in-charge of upkeep of the building in which the office of the appellant-complainant is situated11. The appellant further averred that by letter dated 29.03.2010, the Company through its advocate called upon the advocate of respondents No.1 to 6 to disclose as to how they obtained the documents mentioned in the Schedule of the complaint. The respondents sent reply dated 30.03.2010 and evaded giving any response to the said query on the premise that there was no procedure of the Company Law Board (CLB) for seeking such information. Appellant-Company sent a letter dated 17.04.2010 to respondents No.12 to 16 calling upon them to explain as to how they came in possession of the documents; but there was no reply. In the rejoinder filed by respondents No.1 to 6, they again failed and/or refused to state how they procured these documents12. Appellant alleged that without the consent of the appellant Company, the respondents/accused have dishonestly stolen/misappropriated the documents and thus committed theft and conspiracy to commit theft. It is also averred that the respondents/accused dishonestly received or retained the stolen property knowing and having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and as such committed the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. It is alleged that the respondents/accused thus dishonestly committed theft of the documents No.1 to 54 belonging to the appellant Company and misappropriated them by converting the same for their own use and thus committed the offences punishable under Sections 379, 403 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC13. Complainant Shri Samir Ganguly was examined on 06.10.2010. Since some of the accused persons are residents beyond local jurisdiction of the court, the trial court/the Magistrate fixed the matter for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 08.10.2010. An employee of the appellant Company by name P.B. Dinesh was examined on 08.10.2010. Considering the averments in the complaint and the statement of Complainant Shri Samir Ganguly and P.B. Dinesh, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 08.10.2010 found that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against all the sixteen respondents and ordered issuance of summons to the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 411 and 120B IPC14. Aggrieved by the summoning order dated 08.10.2010, respondents filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. Insofar as compliance of the procedure in taking cognizance of the offences, the High Court held that upon perusal of the averments in the complaint and the statement of representative of the company Shri Samir Ganguly and P. B. Dinesh, the Magistrate satisfied himself that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and ordered to issue process against the sixteen accused and the High Court held that on the procedural aspect, the Magistrate did not commit any error. The High Court held that since originals of documents No.1 to 28 are still in the custody of the complainant, taking away the information contained in such documents cannot be considered to be movable property and the temporary removal of the documents for taking away the contents thereon by itself cannot be the subject of the offence of theft or dishonest misappropriation of property as well as dishonest receiving of the stolen property. On those findings, the High Court held that the complaint would not survive in respect of the documents No.1 to 28. Insofar as documents No.29 to 54 are concerned, the High Court held that as the originals of those documents are missing, the complaint discloses ingredients of the offence of theft. The High Court held that insofar as documents No.29 to 54 are concerned, the complainant can proceed against the respondents and accordingly remitted the matter to the trial court.

Court's reasoning:
26. Complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and enquiry contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and issuance of process:- Under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on presentation of the complaint by an individual, the Magistrate is required to examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. Thereafter, on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the witnesses examined, the Magistrate has to get himself satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and on such satisfaction, the Magistrate may direct for issuance of process as contemplated under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The purpose of the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to determine whether a prima facie case is made out and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused27. The scope of enquiry under this section is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should be issued or not under Section 204 Cr.P.C. or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. At the stage of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is only concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence in support of the averments in the complaint to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused34. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint,The principle that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that as a matter of course, the criminal case against a person cannot be set into motion was reiterated in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited (2013) 4 SCC 505 36. To be summoned/to appear before the Criminal Court as an accused is a serious matter affecting ones dignity and reputation in the society. In taking recourse to such a serious matter in summoning the accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise than on a police report, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint constitute essential ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.37. At the stage of issuance of process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed orders. But based on the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same, the Magistrate is to be prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.38. Extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that the allegations in the complaint and complainants statement and other materials must show that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In the light of the above principles, let us consider the present case whether the allegations in the complaint and the statement of the complainant and other materials before the Magistrate were sufficient enough to constitute prima-facie case to justify the Magistrates satisfaction that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondents-accused and whether there was application of mind by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process to the respondents41. Respondents No.3, 6, 12 and some of the other respondents are the residents beyond the local limits of the trial court – 10 th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. Since number of accused are residents beyond the local limits of the trial court, as per amended provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C., it is obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused, he shall enquire into the case or direct the investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for finding out whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has opted to hold such enquiry himself50. As rightly submitted by learned senior counsel for respondents No.10 and 11, it is inconceivable that respondent No.11, CEO of respondent No.10-Company, if committed the offence of theft, would have been permitted to continue in that profession. Be it noted, the complainant-appellant Company is also a shareholder in respondent No.10-Company and had its nominee Mr. S.N. Prasad on the Board of Directors of the appellant at the relevant time till his death in December, 2012. It is pertinent to note that no complaint has ever been made against respondent No.11 against alleged theft or any other overt act. In the absence of particulars or prima-facie case in the complaint or the statement of Shri Samir Ganguly against respondents No.10 and 11, the satisfaction of the Magistrate appears to be on the presumptive footing that respondents No.10 and 11 are in-charge of maintenance of the building. Likewise, issuance of process to other respondents is only on the presumptive footing that they have filed copies of the documents in CP No.1/2010 and in the civil suits filed challenging revocation of the trusts51. In his order dated 06.10.2010, the Magistrate observed that since some of the accused persons are residents beyond the local jurisdiction of the court, the matter further requires to be enquired into under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and therefore, fixed the matter for further enquiry on 08.10.2010. On 08.10.2010, P.B. Dinesh, employee of the appellant Company was examined who have stated that respondent No.14-Kumar Mangalam Birla is the Chairman of Aditya Birla Group having their office in Mumbai; respondent No.15-Sidharth Birla is also a part of that Company and he resides at Alipore, Calcutta; respondent No.13-Rajendra Prasad Pansari is a resident of Calcutta who has now joined Birla Group. Witness P.B. Dinesh has stated that these respondents have procured documents stolen from the appellants custody and filed case before the Company Law Board on the basis of those documents52. Based on the allegations in the complaint and the statements of Shri Samir Ganguly and P.B. Dinesh, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and directed issuance of summons to respondents No.1 to 16. As pointed out earlier, as per Notes on Clause 19, the object behind the amendment to Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that innocent persons who are residing at far off places are not harassed by unscrupulous persons. The amendment therefore, makes it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond the jurisdiction, the Magistrate has to enquire the case either himself or direct investigation to be made by the police officer and is required to apply his mind and record his satisfaction with reasons53. As pointed our earlier, P.B. Dinesh had merely stated that respondent No.14-Shri Kumar Mangalam Birla is the Chairman of Aditya Birla Group having their office in Mumbai and respondent No.15-Shri Sidharth Birla is a part of the Company and resides at Alipore. P.B. Dinesh has also stated that respondent No.13- Rajendra Prasad Pansari stays in Calcutta and that he was an ex-employee of Birla Corporation and now he has joined Birla Group. P.B. Dinesh has thus stated about residence of respondent No.14 being at Mumbai and residence of respondents No.13 and 15 at Calcutta. There are no specific allegations against respondent No.14 or against any other respondents who are residing outside the jurisdiction. Likewise, no specific allegation as to how respondent No.14 or other respondents who are residing outside the jurisdiction have gained entry into the building of the appellant Company and committed theft of the documents nor any specific allegation as to the alleged conspiracy54. In the statement of P.B. Dinesh, there is only a bare statement that respondents No.13 to 15 have filed case before the Company Law Board that the documents are highly confidential and that they have procured the documents stolen from the custody of the appellant. There are no specific allegations against respondents No.13 to 15. Likewise, there are no specific allegations against the other accused who are residing outside the jurisdiction of the court and how and when they committed theft of the documents that how they entered into conspiracy. Considering the various litigations pending between the parties before issuing summons, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the complaint and statement of witnesses and satisfied himself that there are prima facie materials showing the ingredients of the offence of theft (house theft) and receipt of stolen property55. While ordering issuance of process against the accused, the Magistrate must take into consideration the averments in the complaint, statement of the complainant examined on oath and the statement of witnesses examined. As held in Mehmood Ul Rehman, since it is a process of taking a judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind whether the materials brought before the court would constitute the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not a mechanical process56. As held in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and Another AIR 1963 SC 1430 and in a series of judgments of the Supreme Court, the object of an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is for the Magistrate to scrutinize the material produced by the complainant to satisfy himself that the complaint is not frivolous and that there is evidence/material which forms sufficient ground for the Magistrate to proceed to issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the Magistrate to elicit every fact that would establish the bona fides of the complaint and the complainantFor taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate thus inter alia relied upon the statement of the complainant and P.B. Dinesh to arrive at a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the respondents. As discussed earlier, neither the statement of the complainant nor the statement of P.B. Dinesh contain the particulars as to the commission of the offence to have satisfied the Magistrate that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. By perusal of the above order passed by the Magistrate, we find absolutely nothing to indicate application of mind in taking cognizance of the offence against respondents No.1 to 16 including the respondents who are residents beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Though speaking or elaborate reasoned orders are not required at this stage, there must be sufficient indication that there was application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts constituting the commission of offence58. There are no averments in the complaint nor allegations in the statement of the complainant or witness P.B. Dinesh as to when and how the theft was committed. The complaint has been filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 380, 411 and 120B IPC. The Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 380, 411 and 120B IPC. The offence under Section 380 IPC in the case instituted otherwise than on a police report is a warrant case triable by the Magistrate under Chapter XIX – Trial of warrant cases by Magistrates, XIX-B – Cases instituted otherwise than on police report. For the offences triable under Chapter XIX – trial of warrant cases by the Magistrate, the court has to frame the charge. As per Section 212 Cr.P.C., the charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence and the person against whom or the thing in respect of which, the offence was committed as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. In the present case, the complaint lacks particulars as to time and the place of theft or the person who has committed theft. There are no averments in the complaint alleging that how the documents had gone out of the possession of the complainant. There are only mere statement of the complainant Shri Samir Ganguly that respondents No.12 to 16 have filed civil suits basing on the stolen documents and that he apprehends that all the accused persons in connivance with each other must have procured the documents by theft. In the absence of particulars, by mere possession of the documents or mere production of the documents in the Company Petition or civil suits, it cannot be said that sufficient grounds were made out to proceed against the accused or that the satisfaction of the Magistrate was well founded justifying issuance of process59. As held in Pepsi Foods Limited, summoning the accused for a criminal offence is a serious matter and the respondents are answerable in the criminal court. The non-application of mind as to the materials cannot be brushed aside as a procedural irregularity. There is no indication in the order of the Magistrate dated 08.10.2010 as to application of the mind and as to the satisfaction of the Magistrate as to the sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents under Sections 380, 411 and 120-B IPC60. The High Court held that witness P.B. Dinesh has stated about alleged involvement of some of the accused and there is no fundamental error committed by the Magistrate in following the procedure under Chapter XIX of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court further observed that the flaw at the worst would be a procedural irregularity. The order dated 08.10.2010 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 380, 411 and 120B IPC against respondents No.1 to 16 are liable to be set aside. The Magistrate who is conducting an investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has full power in collecting the evidence and examining the matter. We are conscious that once the Magistrate is exercised his discretion, it is not for the Sessions Court or the High Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate to examine the case on merits. The Magistrate may not embark upon detailed enquiry or discussion of the merits/demerits of the case. But the Magistrate is required to consider whether a prima case has been made out or not and apply the mind to the materials before satisfying himself that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In the case in hand, we do not find that the satisfaction of the Magistrate for issuance of summons is well founded61. The object of investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding . The enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation calling for issuance of process to the person complained against or whether it is a baseless one on which no action need be taken. The law imposes a serious responsibility on the Magistrate to decide if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should be made as an instrument of harassment to the accused. As discussed earlier, issuance of process to the accused calling upon them to appear in the criminal case is a serious matter and lack of material particulars and non-application of mind as to the materials cannot be brushed aside on the ground that it is only a procedural irregularity. In the present case, the satisfaction of the Magistrate in ordering issuance of process to the respondents is not well founded and the order summoning the accused cannot be sustained. The impugned order of the High Court holding that there was compliance of the procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained and is liable to be set asideIn the light of the ratio laid down in Pyare Lal Bhargava, temporary removal of original documents for the purpose of replicating the information contained in them in some other medium would thus fulfill the requirement of moving of property which is the actus reus of the offence of theft as defined under Section 378 IPCThe first Explanation to Section 29 IPC provides that it is immaterial by what means or upon what substance these are formed. This definition would include within its ambit photocopy of a document. As per Explanation No.2 of Section 29 IPC, letters, figures or marks shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters, figures or marks within the meaning of the Section. Such letters, figures or marks thus have a material and physical presence. Therefore, it can also be inferred that the said information would be deemed to fall within the purview of Document – a corporeal property67. Information contained in a document, if replicated, can be the subject of theft and can result in wrongful loss, even though the original document was only temporarily removed from its lawful custody for the purpose of extracting the information contained therein.68. The High Court, in our view, was not right in holding that the replication of the documents or use of information in the documents No.1 to 28 and the contents thereon are not corporeal property and would not amount to theft qua documents No.1 to 28. The documents and the replication of the documents and the contents thereon have physical presence and therefore, are certainly corporeal property and the same can be the subject matter of theft70. Admittedly, documents No.1 to 54 including the Document No.1-Internal Audit Report of Chanderia unit of the appellant Company has been filed by the respondents in the company petition. These documents are intra-company correspondence, internal audit reports, agreements, etc. in relation to the operations of the appellant Company. Admittedly, these documents have been produced in the company petition by the shareholders of the appellant-Company to substantiate their case of oppression and mismanagement by respondent No.17 and for vindication of their rights. As discussed infra in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, in our view taking away of the documents temporarily and using them in the pending litigations between the parties would not amount to theft73. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be seen in using the documents in the litigation, whether there is dishonest intention on the part of the respondents in causing wrongful loss to the appellant Company and getting wrongful gain for themselves. Respondents No.1 to 5 are the shareholders of the appellant-Company and they have produced the photocopies of the documents No.1 to 54 in the CLB proceedings which were filed by them on the ground of oppression and mismanagement. Merely because the respondents have produced the copies of the documents in the CLB proceedings, it cannot be said that the respondents have removed the documents with dishonest intention. Copies of documents are produced in support of the case of respondents No.1 to 5 and to enable the Court to arrive at the truth in a judicial proceeding involving alleged oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the appellant Company by respondent No.17. A person can be said to have dishonest intention if in taking the property it is the intention to wrongful gain by unlawful means or to cause wrongful loss by unlawful means. As discussed earlier, the complaint does not allege that there was any wrongful gain to the respondents or wrongful loss to the appellant-Company so as to constitute ingredients of theft under Section 378 IPC. The complaint only alleges that the copies of the document were used in the CLB proceedings by respondents No.1 to 5. There is no allegation of wrongful gain to the respondents or wrongful loss to the appellant74. As pointed out earlier, documents No.1 to 54 are filed in the Company Petition to substantiate their case of oppression and mismanagement. Filing of documents in the CLB proceedings is only to assert their claim of oppression and mismanagement of the appellant Company. According to the respondents, there is a bona fide dispute of oppression and mismanagement and the documents No.1 to 54 are filed only to substantiate their case. When a bona fide dispute exists between the parties as to whether there is oppression and mismanagement, there is no question of wrongful gain to the respondents or wrongful loss to the appellant. In using the documents, when there is no dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the respondents, it cannot be said that the ingredients of theft are made out75. As discussed earlier, respondents No.12 to 16 have filed five civil suits challenging the cancellation of the trusts for recovery of the property that had vested in public charity through the trust deeds. Respondents No.12 to 16 have filed copy of document No.1-Internal Audit Report of Chanderia Unit of the appellant Company. By the time, the document was filed in the interlocutory applications filed in the civil suits, the document was already filed in CP No.1/2010. Here again, there is a bona fide dispute as to the correctness of cancellation of the revocation of the trusts deed and to substantiate the averments in the complaint and in the interlocutory applications. It cannot be said that the respondents No.1 to 16 had dishonest intention in using the documents so as to cause wrongful loss to the appellant or wrongful gain to themselves so as to attract the ingredients of theft under Section 378 IPC76. How the respondents had access to the documents may be one thing. It may perhaps have bearing on the evidentiary value to be attached to the documents. But to say that it amounts to theft and seeking to prosecute the respondents is nothing but an attempt to cow down their defence in the litigation or to deprive the respondents of their valuable defence. In Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), New Delhi and Others (1974) 1 SCC 345 , it has been held by the Constitution Bench that even in case of illegal search and seizure, the documents obtained cannot be shut out from consideration as long as they are relevant to the matters in issue. In the present case, the documents are used in good faith in the legal proceedings i.e. Company Petition filed by respondents No.1 to 5 alleging oppression and mismanagement and the other suits are the civil suits challenging the cancellation of the Trusts. These cases are pending and both the parties are hotly contesting those cases. Use of the documents in judicial proceeding by the respondents is to substantiate the case of oppression and mismanagement of the appellant-Company. Absolutely, no dishonest intention or wrongful gain could be attributed to the respondents. Likewise, there is no wrongful loss to the appellants so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 378 and 380 IPC77. The intention under Section 24 IPC dishonestly must be to cause wrongful loss to the other or to have wrongful gain for oneself. In determining whether a person has acted dishonestly or not, it is the intention which has to be seen. By filing the documents in the legal proceedings, there is no intention on the part of the respondents to cause wrongful loss to the appellant nor intention to make wrongful gain to themselves. Filing of the documents in the legal proceedings is only to vindicate their stand in the company petition. We find much force in the submission of the learned senior counsel, Mr. Sibal, appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 that the attempt of the appellant in trying to prosecute the respondents appears to arm-twist the respondents in an attempt to shut out the relevant material documents before the CLB proceedings by prosecuting respondents No.1 to 9 and in the civil suits79. Undoubtedly, adequate provisions have been provided in all the laws concerned with the instant case to enable a party to a suit or the concerned court to require the production of all documents and materials considered necessary or desirable for proper adjudication of the dispute at hand. If a document in possession is not produced after notice, there is further presumption under Section 114 illus.(g) that the evidence if produced would have been unfavourable to the opposite party80. The respondents herein are alleged to have used the documents of appellant-Corporation without calling upon them to produce the documents in accordance with law. Of course, the litigants and their counsel are expected to comply with the provisions of law and court discovery rules in producing the documents. But merely because the respondents have not called for the documents as per the provisions, it cannot be said that they have committed theft. It may be that the respondents have not issued notice calling upon the appellant-Corporation to produce the documents or may not have taken steps in accordance with various provisions of law calling upon them to produce documents. This may probably be the point to be raised in appropriate proceedings so as to advance arguments as to the evidentiary value to be attached to the documents. But it would be far-fetched to say that the respondents have dishonestly removed the documents and committed the offence of theft and that they are to face criminal prosecution for theft of the documents. It would only be an arm-twisting tactics to deprive the respondents from pursuing their defence with relevant evidence and materials. Since we have held that there are no sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents and that the order of issuance of summons itself is not sustainable, we are not inclined to go further deep on this aspect; nor express our views as to the evidentiary value to be attached to the documents in the relevant proceedings. Lest, it would amount to expressing our views in the pending proceedings between the partiesAs discussed earlier, admittedly the parties are entangled in several litigations. Allegations of theft and misappropriation are relating to the documents No.1 to 28 and the documents No.1 to 54 which are filed in the company petition and filing of Internal Audit Report in the civil suits. As discussed earlier, there are no specific allegations as to when, where and how the respondents have committed theft; nor are there specific allegations against the respondents accused. Allegations in the complaint, being taken at their face value, do not disclose prima-facie case nor the ingredients of the offence of house theft or misappropriation are made out83. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve a salutary purpose and that the criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that the criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon the accused, in exercise of the inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.85. In the present case, it is one thing to say that the documents have not been secured in accordance with the law and no value could be attached to them. But merely because documents have been produced from one source or other, it cannot be said that documents have been dishonestly removed to obtain wrongful gain to the respondents and cause wrongful loss to the appellant. Where it appears that the criminal complaint has been filed to bring pressure upon the respondents who are shown as accused in the criminal case, the complaint is to be quashed88. The FIR or the criminal proceedings can be quashed if the allegations do not make out a prima-facie case or allegations are so improbable that no prudent person would ever reach a just conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. So far as, the allegation of retention of the documents No.29 to 54, in our view, no allegation as to when and how the original documents were removed and retained by the respondents. Where on the admitted facts no prima-case case is made out against the accused for proceeding or when the Supreme Court is satisfied that the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of court, Supreme Court has the power to quash any judicial proceedings in exercise of its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the present case is a fit case for exercising the power in quashing the criminal complaint qua the documents No.29 to 54 also.