The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove criminal breach of trust or cheating, it is essential to demonstrate dishonest intention, misappropriation, and dishonest inducement, as required under Sections 405, 406, and 420 of the IPC.

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CrPC), the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19th June, 2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhagalpur in Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 21 of 2012, whereby the application preferred under Section 239 of the CrPC for discharge has been dismissed.

2. The First Information Report (for short FIR) was instituted on the basis of a written report submitted by one Manju Tulsyan on 21st February, 2012 to the Officer-in-Charge, Pirpainti Police Station, Bhagalpur. It is stated by the informant in her written report that the petitioner had purchased one Mahindra Jeep on 19th January, 2002 after taking loan from the State Bank of India, Pirpainti. The husband of the informant stood as guarantor to the said loan account of the petitioner. When the petitioner did not repay the loan amount, the Bank issued notice to her husband. Despite several requests made by her husband, the petitioner failed to repay the amount to the Bank. Thereafter, the Bank realized Rs.81,000/- from the joint account of her husband and son on 6th January, 2009 by transferring the money to the loan account of the petitioner. It is further stated that her husband repeatedly demanded the money realized by the Bank from his account from the petitioner, but he did not pay back the amount. It is alleged that it would be clear from the conduct of the petitioner that he has no intention to compensate the loss suffered by her husband, as he became surety for him.

3. On the basis of the said allegations, Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 21 of 2012 was registered on 6th February, 2012 under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) against the petitioner and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet on 31st July, 2012 under Section 406 of the IPC against the petitioner.

4. On perusal of the FIR, the police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC and statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) of the CrPC, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC.

5. At the stage of framing of charge, when an application was filed under Section 239 of the CrPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking discharge from the case, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate not only dismissed the said application vide order dated 19th June, 2015, but also observed that from the materials available on record ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are attracted.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 19th June, 2015, whereby the application for discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC has been dismissed, is bad in the eye of law. The allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of either Section 406 or Section 420 of the IPC. At best, it is a case of civil liability but the court below has rejected the application in a cryptic manner without application of judicial mind.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner had purchased one Mahindra Jeep after taking loan from the Bank and the husband of the informant had stood as a surety against the loan account. Due to the default caused in repaying the loan amount, Rs.81,000/- was realized by the Bank from the joint account of the husband of the informant and her son. Apparently, the petitioner has committed an offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating and thus, the court has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 239 of the CrPC.

8. I have heard the parties and perused the record.

9. It is to be seen whether or not the averments made in the FIR taken at its face value make out the ingredients o