[2025:RJ-JP:40155] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1077/2018 1. Anshul Kasliwal S/o Mr. Deshnidhi Kasliwal 2. Deshnidhi Kasliwal S/o Late Mr. Kamal Chand Kasliwal, C/o. M/s. Kamal Auto Industries, Opposite Airport Gate, Jhalawar Road, Kota Raj. 3. Mahaveer Singh S/o Late Mr. Ram Narayan, Rangwadi Yojna, Kota Raj. 4. Yogesh Rathore S/o Mr. Govind Lal, Near Mata Ji's Temple, Kotdi, Kota Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. 2. Rahul Pareta S/o Mr. Om Prakash Pareta, R/o House No. 281-A, Talwandi, Kota Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh, Adv., Mr. Sarwat Alam, Adv. Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, Adv. through VC Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv. & Mr. Yashwant Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.GA Mr. Devi Singh, Dy.GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 03/10/2025 1. This petition has been filed to quash the order dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No2, North Kota (hereinafter referred to as learned 'trial Court'), whereby, cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 406 of [2025:RJ-JP:40155] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-1077/2018] IPC; also the order dated 21.02.2017 passed by learned trial Court, whereby, charge against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC was framed and against the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kota (Mahila Utpidan) (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Revisional Court'), whereby, the revision petition filed against the order dated 21.02.2017 was dismissed. It has been further prayed in the petition that FIR No.396/2014 registered at Police Station Vigyan Nagar, District Kota City for the offence punishable under Section 407 of IPC and all the proceedings arising out of the same be quashed. 2. As per the brief facts of the case, on 21.05.2014, the complainant-Rahul Pareta entrusted the car of his brother-Rohit Pareta; who is the registered owner of the car bearing registration No. RJ-20-CC-2524, at the service station of the petitioners for service of the car. On 10.07.2014, the car was stolen from the workshop of the petitioners. On 23.07.2014, the complainant registered an FIR against the petitioners for the offence under Section 407 IPC with the allegation that the petitioners have not handed over the car and thereafter misappropriated his property. On 26.07.2014, one of the employees who is petitioner No.3 namely-Mahaveer Singh registered a complaint of theft of the car of the complainant from the workshop of the petitioners. 3. After investigation in pursuance of the FIR No.396/2014 lodged by complainant-respondent No.2, it was found that the car was stolen from the workshop of the petitioners and the [2025:RJ-JP:40155] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-1077/2018] petitioners offered the complainant-respondent No.2 to get some other car of equal value, which has been stolen from their workshop, but the complainant refused to accept the proposal offered by the petitioners. The police found that there was no criminal intention qua the petitioners for committing misappropriation of the property (car of complainant), therefore, final report was submitted before the concerned trial Court. It was mentioned in the said report that no offence under section 407 of IPC has been proved. 4. Learned trial Court vide order dated 03.07.2015, rejected the final report and took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 406 IPC and vide order dated 21.02.2017, the trial Court passed the order of framing of charge under Section 406 IPC against the petitioners. Petitioners challenged the order of framing of charge by way of filing Revision Petition No.107/2017, which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2017 by learned Revisional Court. 5. It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant also filed a complaint No.06/2015 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench No.1 against the company Kamal Auto Hyundai represented by petitioner No.1 namely-Anshul Kasliwal. The complaint was decided in favour of the complainant vide order dated 07.03.2017, whereby, the complainant was made entitled to get the value of the vehicle Rs.8 lacs along with the interest @ 9% from the date of presentation of the complaint till realization and Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for the mental and physical agony and Rs. 25000 [2025:RJ-JP:40155] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-1077/2018] as cost of proceedings. Vide order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No.689/2017, upheld the judgment dated 07.03.2017 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench No.1 with certain modification. Thus, the complainant has received the value of his stolen car. 6. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that this is a pure civil dispute between the parties wherein the complainant-respondent No.2 entrusted the car for service at the workshop of the petitioners from where it was stolen with no fault on the part of petitioners. Accordingly, petitioner no.3 registered an FIR in this regard. In this matter, no criminal intention can be inferred against the petitioners to misappropriate the car and it is very evident from the finding of the Investigating Agency that the petitioners also made a proposal to provide the complainant with another car of the equal value of the stolen car. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as no case was found proved against the petitioners under section 407 IPC, therefore, final report was submitted to the concerned trial court, however, learned trial Court erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners and also erred in framing of charge. Therefore, the FIR as well as the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the contentions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners. [2025:RJ-JP:40155] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-1077/2018] 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 9. The offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, for which the cognizance against the petitioners has been taken, is defined under Section 405 of IPC. 10. Section 405 of IPC reads as under:- "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 willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust." 11. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 406 IPC is the dishonest intention, which is defined as causing wrongful loss to one and wrongful gain to another. 12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances in this case, no dishonest intention can be inferred against the petitioners as the petitioners have not done any act to misappropriate the car rather the car was stolen from the workshop, the fact of theft was seen in footage of the CCTVs installed in the workshop. Moreover, there was no fault on the part of the petitioners, rather the petitioners offered the complainant to provide with a car of equal value of the stolen car. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a case of criminal breach of trust and the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the final report and taking the [2025:RJ-JP:40155] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-1077/2018] cognizance against the petitioners, therefore, this Court deems it proper to allow the petition. 13. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 03.07.2015, 21.02.2017, 20.11.2017 and all the criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.396/2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita /39