Key Points: - The scope and limits of inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, including that the magistrate must determine prima facie grounds for proceeding and not adjudicate merits at this stage (!) (!) . - The difference between criminal breach of trust and cheating, emphasizing entrustment and mens rea requirements, and that mere non-payment in a sale does not automatically constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating without entrustment or fraudulent intent from inception (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court’s framing of the matter as lacking entrustment and fraudulent inception, leading to quashing of the summoning order; the Supreme Court’s conclusion that there was no entrustment and the offences were not established, so the summoning order and High Court’s decision were set aside (appeal allowed) (!) (!) (!) . - The requirement that a complainant must prove entrustment to sustain Section 406 IPC charges; a sale where property passes to buyer may negate entrustment for criminal breach of trust (!) (!) . - The caution that private complaints must show prima facie offences and that merely alleging non-payment does not automatically constitute a criminal offence, especially where there is no entrustment (!) (!) . - The principle that summons are serious and require subjective satisfaction of grounds for proceeding, and can be intervened upon under Section 482 CrPC if not properly applied (!) (!) (!) . - The concluding observation that the two offences (cheating and criminal breach of trust) are independent and cannot co-exist on the same factual matrix without proper entrustment and mens rea (!) (!) .

What is the scope of inquiry under Section 202 CrPC when issuing process for a private complaint?

What is the distinction between criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) as applied to entrustment and mens rea?

What is the court’s conclusion regarding whether the complainant’s allegations disclose an offence and whether the summoning order can be quashed?