Society’s removal of fixtures without dishonest intent or wrongful gain does not constitute theft.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that, on 11 July 2021, unidentified persons acting on the Petitioners’ instructions removed lamps and iron poles affixed near his property; an FIR under Sections 379 and 34 of the IPC was registered on 24 July 2021, followed by a chargesheet pending before the JMFC, Vashi.

The Petitioners contended that the fixtures were removed pursuant to a society resolution authorising removal of unauthorised installations, to facilitate repairs, and that the items remained on the society premises.

The High Court issued Rule and stayed further proceedings; the Petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and chargesheet under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC.

Whether the FIR and chargesheet disclosed the essential ingredients of theft under Sections 378 and 379 of the IPC, particularly dishonest intention.

Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC as an abuse of process.

Section 378 of the IPC defines theft as moving movable property out of another’s possession, without that person’s consent, with the intention of taking it dishonestly; under Sections 23 and 24, dishonesty requires an intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.

The Court applied the quashing principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even accepted at face value, do not constitute an offence, are inherently improbable, or are manifestly mala fide.

The High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, and its jurisdiction under Article 226, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court found that the record indicated the fixtures were removed pursuant to a society resolution and for repair work, and that the articles remained within the society premises; the society had also informed Respondent No. 2 that the articles were available for collection.

The FIR and chargesheet disclosed no material indicating that the Petitioners intended wrongful gain or wrongful loss, or otherwise acted dishonestly; even if the removal were improper, the Court held that it did not, on these facts, amount to theft.

In light of the surrounding society disputes, the Court considered the prosecution an offshoot of those disputes and concluded that the case fell within categories 1, 5 and 7 of Bhajan Lal.

It allowed the petition, quashed the proceedings in terms of the prayer clauses, and made the Rule absolute.