For an offence under Section 406 IPC, there must be entrustment of property and a fiduciary relationship; allegations of criminal breach of trust without these elements do not constitute a valid charge.

JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Sri Mahesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.

2. The applicants have preferred instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 18.09.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2022, Amit Kumar Dubey and another v. State of U.P. and another order dated 07.01.2022 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 831 of 2019, Arising out of Case Crime No. 138 of 2019 State of U.P. v. Amit Kumar Dubey and another under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC , Police Station - Rohaniya, District - Varanasi, whereby applicants’ discharge application dated 04.09.2021 has been rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the informant earns for his livelihood by taking contracts of constructions work. The applicant no. 1 – Amit Kumar asked the informant for construction of his house and the tasks to be carried out during the construction were noted in a quotation prepared for the said purpose, whereupon the applicant no. 1 and Engineer K.K. Singh put their signatures on 26.04.2015. After the preparation of the quotation, the informant had started construction work of the applicant’s house on 27.04.2015 and the informant got the construction work of the applicant’s house completed and for the said construction, the total labour charges incurred were Rs. 10,19,000/-, out of which Rs. 4,44,000/- were paid during the construction work being done and the balance amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- was to be paid by the applicants. On being asked for the remaining payment, the applicant no. 1 assured the informant to pay it soon. Even after lapse of two years, the applicants have not made payment of informant’s remaining amount and whenever the informant visited the applicants’ house for payment, wife of applicant no. 1 Sudha Pandey used unwelcoming language stating that no money would be paid to the informant, and, if he will come to ask for money, she will send the informant and his son behind the bars implicating them in a false case of eve-teasing. On 15.12.2018, when the informant again, for the purpose of requesting for payment, went to applicants’ house at around 07:00 p.m., the applicant no. 1 lashed out on the informant and hurled filthy abuses and the applicant no. 2 threatened him to kill, warning him that in case the informant comes again to demand money, he would be killed. Fearing of the same, the informant came back to his home. He moved application of the incident to the Chowki Incharge, Mataldei, P.S. Rohaniya, Varanasi on 16.12.2018 and before the Station House Officer, P.S. Rohaniya, Varanasi on 02.01.2019 and also before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi on 11.01.2019, thereafter in Sampoorn Samadhan Diwas, Rajatalab, Varanasi on 16.01.2019 and before the District Magistrate, Varanasi and Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi on 08.02.2019, however, the said applications failed to elicit any action. Therefore, the informant has prayed for lodging an FIR against the applicants for grabbing amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- use of abusive language and intimidation to kill him. Thereafter, the FIR was instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. The applicants have never c