Point of Law: Law is a noble profession. The monopoly conferred on the legal profession by Parliament is coupled with a responsibility towards the clients. Nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is a lawyer. He is the sole accused in the case C.C. No. 273/2012 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur.

2. The petitioner was the Deputy Chairman and a Legal Advisor of the company by name M/s. Cherupushpam Kuries. The company had engaged him for instituting suits for realisation of money due from the subscribers to the kuries conducted by it. It is alleged that the petitioner did not file the suits after receiving money from the company towards the expenses to be met in that regard and that he misappropriated the amount. It is also alleged that he provided false suit numbers to the company, as if he had instituted those suits and obtained money from the company. Therefore, it is alleged that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing Annexure-A final report filed against him by the police for the offences mentioned above.

4. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Prima-facie, the allegations contained in the final report against the petitioner, supported by the statements of the witnesses, reveal and constitute the ingredients of the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating.

6. The offence of criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 and it is made punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code states that, whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust.”

8. The offence of criminal breach of trust involves the following ingredients: (a) a person should have been entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property; (b) that person should dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use that property, or dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so and (c) that such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.

9. Two distinct parts are involved in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust. The first part consists of the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second part involves misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created.

10. Entrustment of property as envisaged in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code need not be in any particular manner. The entrustment may arise in “any manner” whatsoever. The words 'in any manner' in the context are significant. The section does not provide that the entrustment of the property with the accused shall be made by some person. As long as the accused is given possession of property for a specific purpose or to deal with it in a particular manner, the ownership being in some person other than the accused, he can be said to be entrusted with that property to be applied in accordance with the terms of entrustment and for the benefit of the owner.

11. The above principles, reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, have been highlighted by this Court in Damodara Panicker vs. State of Kerala, 2019 (3) K