The central legal point established is that for the offenses of cheating and criminal breach of trust to be made out, the essential elements and intentions must be present from the beginning.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 212 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1952 of 2010 arising out of C.P. Case No. 908 of 2010, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.

3. Initially a complaint being C.P. Case No. 908/2010 was filed which was converted into F.I.R. being Govindpur P.S. Case No. 212 of 2010 alleging therein that the Complainant/Informant (O.P.No. 2) has purchased a BOLERO vehicle (bearing Registration No. JH-10-S/0401 & Engine No.- G.A. 94 NO-51076, Chesis No. MAIPLGAK9247 & Model 2523CC) on 23.01.2009 and paid Rs.01,82,221/- only to the Distributer of the said vehicle namely Auto Planate Industry Pvt. Ltd., Dhanbad and availed finance facility of the rest amount from M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Dhanbad Branch, in which petitioner was employed as a Manager.

It was further alleged that the Complainant/O.P. No. 2 had to pay total amount of Rs.05,65,500/only for the purchase of the said vehicle in which the 1st EMI of Rs.12,120/- only was paid by him on the very same day on 23.01.2009.

It was further alleged that the Complainant/O.P. No.- 2 had paid Rs.60,150/- only towards 5-EMI within time.

It was further alleged that in between 30.06.2009 & 01.07.2009 the said BOLERO vehicle of the Complainant/O.P. No.- 2 was stolen and after search when it was not found then the information was given to the Govindpur P.S. bearing Case No.- 175/09 about the said incidence.

It was further alleged that Complainant/O.P. No.- 2 has given information to the D.T.O. Dhanbad, Local officials of M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and Insurance Company also namely Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company from which the vehicle was insured. It has further alleged that petitioner's Company has taken the payment of Rs.4,95,646/- only from Insurance company on 01.10.2009 and after proper calculation, petitioner's Company is ready to pay Rs.21,677/- only to the complainant/O.P. No.- 2 as full & final payment amount.

It was further alleged that accordingly petitioner’s company has betrayed the complainant/informant/O.P. No. 2 and by playing fraud taken entire amount. Thus, the said F.I.R. has been instituted.

4. Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant/O.P. No.2 had purchased a Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-10-S/0401 on 23.01.2009 and availed finance facility from the petitioner’s company namely, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited for its purchase after executing a Loan Agreement. He further submits that total cost of the said vehicle was Rs. 05,50,301/- and the loan of Rs. 3,90,000/- was granted in favour of the O.P. No.2 by the petitioner’s company for the purchase of the said vehicle. The complainant/O.P. No.2 paid down payment to the tune of Rs. 1,82,221/-. He submits that the E.M.I. was fixed in 47 installement however, O.P. No.2 paid only 5 installment. He submits that the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen in between 30.06.2009 & 01.07.2009 and in view of that M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited has received a sum of Rs. 4,95,646/- from the insurer of the said vehicle namely, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. He further submits that petitioner requested the O.P. No. 2 to collect the refund amount of Rs. 21,677/- but the O.P. No. 2 did not turn up to take the differentiated amount of the vehicle. He further submits that the wife of the O.P. No. 2 is a police official and the said stolen vehicle has been released in favour of the O.P. No.2 and the said vehicle is being used by the O.P. No.2. On these background, he submits that the petitioner who happens to be Branch Manager of M/s Mahindra & Mahindr