The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the essential ingredients for constituting the offense of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, specifically focusing on the concepts of entrustment and dominion over property.

This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.328 of 2005 including the order dated 25.7.2005 whereby and whereunder the court having satisfied that sufficient materials are there to proceed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code issued summons to the petitioner.

2. The case of the complainant as has been made out in the complaint petition is that in the month of April, 2004 when the petitioner offered invitation for construction of a building of Kashyap Vision Care Hospital, Purulia Road, Ranchi, it was accepted by the complainant and thereby the complainant was allowed to take up the construction work on the terms and condition agreed upon. Thereafter the complainant purchased machineries worth Rs.3,74,260.75 related to the construction work and brought it to the site of the work under security cover provided by the accused. The complainant when started construction work, payments were made time to time upon bills being raised. The petitioner was never dissatisfied with the quality of the work, still on 17.9.2004 the petitioner asked the complainant to stop construction work without letting him know about the reason. The complainant tried to meet the petitioner but he failed. Ultimately on 25.9.2004 when he met with the petitioner and enquired about the reason for cancelling the contract, the petitioner did not give any satisfactory reply, rather asked him to go away. Thereupon he came to work site to take his machineries back but the Munshi of the petitioner did not allow to take them away. After a week i.e. 3.10.2004, when the petitioner along with the witnesses came to work site, they were shocked to find that the accused were using and operating machineries which had been kept there. Thereafter when the complainant met the accused to permit him to take his machineries, the accused refused to allow the complainant to take the machineries. Lastly on 18.3.2005 when the complainant again came to the work site, he requested the security guard to allow him to take the machineries but they not only refused to allow him to take machineries but also extended threat of being assaulted. Thereupon the complainant came to the Lower Bazar Police Station for lodging a case but the Officer-in-Charge refused to lodge the case and in that event, a complaint was lodged with the allegation that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation whereupon the case was taken for enquiry under Section 202 of the Indian penal Code, during which the witnesses were examined. Thereupon the court passed an order on 25.7.2005 whereby the court, having found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, issued summon against him.

4. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed.

5. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the complainant that the complainant on being awarded with the construction work purchased certain machineries and brought it to the work site under security cover provided by the accused. Those machineries, on contract being terminated, were not allowed as per the case of the complainant to be taken by the accused persons rather it were found being used by the accused persons. Even if this allegation not allowing the complainant to take his machineries rather it were being used by the petitioner is accepted to be true, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code as the petitioner in view of the case, which has been made out, cannot be said to have been entrusted with the said machineries or entrusted with its dominion which is one of the main ingredients for constituting offence in terms of Section 405 of the