J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Pathak, the learned APP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Ms. Alka B. Vaniya, the learned counsel, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

2. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused No. 6, seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being C.R. No. I-71 of 2015 registered with the Salabarpura Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 504, 506(2), 120(B) read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The respondent No. 2 herein lodged the first information report on 20th April, 2015 against, in all, six persons. The applicant herein has been shown as an accused No. 6 in the first information report. It is the case of the first informant that he is into the business of sale of sarees and dress materials. The accused persons are alleged to have placed different orders, and the first informant supplied the materials. However, the accused persons defaulted in making the payment. It is alleged that few cheques were also issued, which came to be dishonoured.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that even if the entire case put up by the first informant is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust are spelt out. The learned senior counsel submits that so far as the applicant herein is concerned, there are no direct or indirect allegations. The learned senior counsel invited the attention of the court on the second last paragraph of the first information report, wherein it has been stated that the first informant learnt through one businessman, namely, Ramkumar Jetharam Vasani that the accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, in collusion with the accused No. 6, had cheated the first informant.

5. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Arvindbhai Maganlal Master & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.., Criminal Misc. Application No. 11031 of 2014, decided on 13.11.2014.

6. In the said judgment this Court has explained the distinction between the criminal breach of trust and cheating and what would constitute the criminal breach of trust and cheating. I may quote the observations relied upon by the learned senior counsel.

"The offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients. In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC).

(1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and

(2) The person entrusted:

(a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or

(b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation

(i) any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged and

(ii) of legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see: S.W.P. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241) : (AIR 2001 SC 2960).

Similarly, in respect of an offence under section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are:

(1) deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;

(2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or

(3) the consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see: Harmanpeet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712 : (2009) Cr.L.J. 3462 (SC))

Further, in both sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present from the very beginning or inception without which either of these sections cannot be invoked.

In my view, the plain reading of the First Informati