The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 IPC and the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the summoning order dated 10.11.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kheri in Case No. 1998 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2020, under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Phoolbehad, District Kheri as well as charge sheet no. 182 of 2020 dated 07.06.2020 submitted by the police in the aforesaid case.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that a false and frivolous FIR under Section 406 IPC was registered by the Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) Block Phoolbehad, Kheri on 22.02.2020 with the allegation that the petitioner being In-charge of Paddy Purchase Centre, FSS Servayant Maineha and the petitioner purchased more than 100 quintal paddy from farmers in violation of purchase policy of paddy in purchase year 2019-20. After loding of the FIR, the Investigating Officer after completing the formalities of investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 406 IPC.

4. Further submission is that no disclosed offence under Section 406 IPC is made out against the petitioner as the petitioner never entrusted in any manner any property nor he misappropriated any property nor converted to his own use. It is further submitted that if the prosecution story is accepted in toto then only the allegation against the petitioner is for violating the government purchase policy. The petitioner in violation of purchase policy purchased more than 100 quintals paddy. Further submission is that in this case five farmers sold more than 100 quintals paddy. During investigation, this fact is clearly established that the purchase price is totally paid to the farmers.

5. Even if the irregularity has been committed by the petitioner then in such circumstances, no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner. If the petitioner purchased paddy in violation of purchase policy, then only administrative or departmental action could be initiated against him. Thus the charge sheet as well as entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and consequently cognizance order has been passed as such, prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner.

7. This Court perused the entire record. Perusal of FIR shows that the petitioner was the In-charge of Paddy Purchase Centre. As per purchase policy, it was the duty of the petitioner not to purchase more than 100 quintal. As per allegation made in the FIR it transpires that the petitioner purchased more than 100 quintals paddy. The petitioner violated the clear mandate of purchase policy of the government. Therefore, the petitioner has committed irregularity for purchase of paddy crops from agriculturists. Thus it amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. In this regard, departmental/ administrative action can be initiated against the petitioner.

8. The criminal breach of trust has been defined under Section 405 IPC, which reads as under:-

405.Criminal breach of trust.-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".

A careful reading of Section 405 shows that the ingredients of a criminal breach of trust are as follows:-

i) A person should have been entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over prop