CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 17942 OF 1995 ****** ( In the matter of application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) ****** ALI RAZA, SON OF DR. S. R. HUSSAIN, RESIDENT OF G-128, PEOPLES CO- OPERATIVE COLONY, KANKARBAGH COLONY, PATNA-800020 ………………………..…………………………………………….……...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PATNA, INDRA BHAWAN (5TH FLOOR), RAM CHARITRA PATH THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER …………………………………..………………..……..……OPPOSITE PARTIES ******************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground that no offence is made out under Section 406, 408, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant is the Bihar State Financial Corporation. The case has been filed against M/s. Maurya Data System and Services Private Limited and its employees. The allegation is that the accused no. 2 on behalf of the Private Limited Company had taken a loan from the Bihar State Financial Corporation and hypothecated certain assets at the site i.e. the building, the plant machinery, tools & equipments and furniture. The petitioner company failed to repay the loan amount and the interest thereupon and 2 thereafter they began to sell all the hypothecated machinery, computers etc. This allegation has been made at paragraph 6 of the complaint petition, which reads as follows:- “That on 25/2/94 and other dates the complainant as well as his Officer‟s Sri P. C. Mishra, Deputy Manager, Sri A. P. Singh, Deputy Manager, as well as complainant visited the Factory and it was found that there was no machine (computer) its parts, accessories, tools, implements and furnitures etc. available at the above mortgage place (site) nor the accused persons were available and on enquiry from the other persons it was learnt that with criminal intention they have cheated the corporation and removed the hypothecated goods as well as left the place seeing the complainant as well as his Officials and on 30/6/94 the complainant as well as Sri Kalika Prasad Singh, and also on 2/8/94, the complainant as well as Sri Y. P. Singh and Sri K. P. Singh visited the spot but except the Guard none was available on the spot. On enquiry, Guard has told that all the machineries have been taken away by the accused and in this regard he has given a written certificate to the complainant.” Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out against the petitioner, specifically with respect the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. For the purposes of emphasizing his point, Counsel for 3 the petitioner refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Dunker Agro Industries Limited [1996 (5) SCC 591], which has been followed by this Court in the case of Ranjeet Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar [1998 (2) PLJR 401]. The Supreme Court has held in order to make out an offence of criminal breach of trust, the expression „entrusted‟ in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code indicates that there must be, entrustment of property belonging to some other persons. It has been held as follows:- “The expression „entrust‟ in Section 405 is a comprehensive expression and has been used to denote various actions of relationship like the relationship of trustee and beneficiary, bailor and bailee, master and servant, treasure and tresee”, and has further held that “it is essential that the property entrusted should belong to somebody else to complete the offence of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code”. Applying the aforesaid decisions, this Court finds that it is basically a case, which relates to a civil dispute and as such this application is allowed and the Complaint Case No. 684 (C) of 1994 is quashed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 13th DECEMBER, 2010 N.A.F.R./ANAND