The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation, and the investigation of non-cognizable offences by the police without the order of a Magistrate is illegal and without jurisdiction.

Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned Government advocate for the State and Mr. Uday Chandra Prasad,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3, Raj Kumar Raushan.

2. By filing this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the first information report of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 60 of 2012 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. At the outset, it would be relevant to note that after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State by order dated 29th April, 2013, this Court had stayed the further proceedings pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Biraul, Supaul in connection with the aforesaid police case. However, investigation of the case was not stayed and, as such, the police proceeded with the investigation and submitted charge sheet in the Court on 15th April, 2013 vide charge sheet no. 29/2013 dated 31.03.2013. Since this Court had already stayed further proceedings of the case, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biraul, Supaul has not taken cognizance of the offence till date.

4. As during pendency of the writ application, the police have submitted their report vide charge sheet bearing no. 29/2013 dated 31.03.2013 under Sections 406, 374, 347, 323, & 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the aforesaid Raghopur P.S. Case No. 60 of 2012, an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 1682 of 2013 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the aforesaid charge sheet dated 31st March, 2013.

5. On the basis of a written report dated 01.05.2012 submitted by respondent no. 3 Raj Kumar Raushan to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Bihar during his seva yatra, the aforesaid police case was instituted on 12th May, 2012 against the petitioners under Section 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has alleged that being President of Kosi Mazdoor Union and being employed on the post of Supervisor in Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. (hereinafter refereed to as “the company”) on raising genuine grievances, the petitioners who were employed as Project Manager, 2nd Project Manager, Accounts Manager and Manger Personnel respectively used to threaten to eliminate him. It has further been alleged that the petitioners took work from the labourers and employees of the company for 13-14 hours but they were paid wages for 8 hours only. Further, the workmen were not provided facilities like, payment of over-time wages, identity card, health card, etc. When they raised protest, they were threatened by SAP Constables. They were also threatened to be returned from employment. It is also alleged that local employees and labourers were being insulted by calling them as “Bihari”. Apart from these allegations, it has also been stated in the aforesaid representation submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Minister that the atrocities of the company were highlighted right from the block level upto the Central level but the grievances raised in this regard went unheeded. It has further been contended that the employees and labourers resorted to agitation, demonstration and hunger strike to buttress their demand and due to intervention of local M.L.A. an attempt was also made to resolve the issue but instead of fulfilling the genuine demand of the employees, the officers of the company paid only half salary to 265 workmen for the month of October to November. It is alleged that the management failed to make payment of Rs. 9 lacs towards overtime and salary deduction and when it was protested, as many as 50 local labourers were removed from the job. It has further been stated that the company has finished 95% of its job and hence, steps be taken towards payment of due salary and overtime wages. In the written complaint, it has been stated that if the grievances of the workmen a