Essential elements for criminal breach of trust include entrustment and dishonest intention; mere breach of contract does not establish criminal culpability.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the F.I.R. including the entire criminal proceedings of Chas P.S. Case No.192 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316 (2) and 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner representing Sri Krishna Sales, approached the informant for the business of electronics goods. The business between the petitioner and the informant continued from 19.02.2022 to 13.06.2023 but thereafter the petitioner slowed down the payments and on 28.08.2023, a sum of Rs.4,25,336/- was due and payable by the petitioner to the informant but the same was not paid. On the basis of the written-report of the informant, police registered Chas P.S. Case No.192 of 2024 and took up the investigation of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and police has not submitted charge-sheet in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case ofSatyabhama Dubey @ Satyabhama Devi & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in2024 Supreme (jhk) 171 and submits that in that case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy Vs. Ramesh Ranganathan & Another reported in(2022) SCC Online SC 1061, para -21 to 24 of which read as under:-

“21. The offence of criminal breach of trust contains two ingredients: (i) entrusting any person with property, or with any dominion over property; and (ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property to the detriment of the person who entrusted it.

22. In Anwar Chand Sab Nanadikar v. State of Karnataka6 a two-judge bench restated the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust in the following words:

“7. The basic requirement to bring home the accusations under Section 405 are the requirements to prove conjointly (1) entrustment, and (2) whether the accused was actuated by the dishonest intention or not misappropriated it or converted it to his own use to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it. As the question of intention is not a matter of direct proof, certain broad tests are envisaged which would generally afford useful guidance in deciding whether in a particular case the accused had mens rea for the crime.”

23. In Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal another two- judge bench held that entrustment of property is pivotal to constitute an offence under section 405 of the IPC. The relevant extract reads as follows:

“28. “Entrustment” of property under Section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this. The words used are, “in any manner entrusted with property”. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of “trust”. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code.”

24. None of the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust have been demonstrated on the allegations in the complaint as they stand. The first respondent alleges that the Appellant caused breach of trust by issuing grossly irregular bills,