938-APPLN-4219-24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4219 OF 2024 1. Rushali Jeevan Bardiya 2. Amit Padamkumar Jain ..APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Akshay Bhausaheb Pawar ..RESPONDENTS .... Mr. M.K. Bhosale, Advocate for applicants Mr. S.P. Joshi, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 – State Mr. S.S. Patunkar, Advocate i/b J.P. Legal Associates for respondent no.2 .... CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. This application is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 422 of 2024 registered with Cantonment Police Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The F.I.R. indicates that it is the case of informant that he has acquaintance with the present applicants and at their instance some money was invested with the co-accused i.e. Accused No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the allegations in the F.I.R. do not attract offence of criminal breach of trust against the present 1 / 4 2026:BHC-AUG:38695-DB 938-APPLN-4219-24.odt applicants. It is his submission that in order to apply said offence, there has to be entrustment of any property which is absent in the present crime. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ankur Gupta Vs. State of U.P., 2019(3) Crimes 81(SC). He, therefore, contends that in absence of any evidence in order to attract the provisions of Section 406 of the I.P.C., the Applicants cannot be compelled to undergo rigors of criminal trial. 4. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 – Informant opposed the application. According to them, the statement in the F.I.R. indicates that it was the present Applicants, who instigated the informant to invest money with the co-accused. This according to him is sufficient for the Applicants to undergo rigors of criminal trial. 5. In order to attract the offence punishable under Section 406 of the I.P.C., the act of Applicants prima facie must prove criminal breach of trust. It would be relevant to take note of Section 405 of the I.P.C., which defines criminal breach of trust, which reads thus :- “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”. 2 / 4 938-APPLN-4219-24.odt 6. Perusal of the above definition indicates that entrustment of the property is a pre-condition in order to apply the said provision. In this backdrop, case of the informant does not indicate any entrustment with the Applicants. As such, no offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. is prima facie made out against the Applicants. 7. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335, which gives guidelines for the decision of quashment of criminal proceedings. Relevant observations made therein read thus : “ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3 / 4 938-APPLN-4219-24.odt (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. The guidelines laid down in the above judgment squarely apply to the present case. Even if the case of prosecution is accepted to be true, offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code does not get attracted. The applicant therefore cannot be forced to undergo rigors of trial. 9. As such, the Criminal Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause [B]. ( R.M. JOSHI, J. ) SSD 4 / 4