JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.840 of 2021 as well as the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 424, 109, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act and prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the Criminal Revision No.62 of 2024 which was filed against the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed by the learned trial court and the case is next fixed to 30.01.2026 for evidence before charge. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners are respectively Nanad the mother and (Sister of the husband) of the opposite party No.2/complainant. The allegation against the husband of the complainant namely Mainak Roy is that he has sold the property in violation of the protection order passed against him in Complaint Case No.1059 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad and purchased a flat in the name of the petitioner No.2. Though there is allegation that after the reception ceremony of the marriage of the complainant/opposite party No.2, the petitioners have Streedhan kept her which was given by the parents of the opposite party No.2 to her and that even after being asked they are not returning the same but the same was also the subject matter of C.P. Case No.624 of 2010 in which the petitioners were also the accused persons. 5. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the inquiry evidence, the learned Magistrate inter alia found sufficient grounds to issue summons against the petitioners also for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 424, 109, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act. 6. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the inquiry evidence, the learned Magistrate inter alia found sufficient grounds to issue summons against the petitioners also for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 424, 109, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the offence punishable under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, the same provides for penalty for breach of protection order passed against the person concerned and drawing attention of the Court to page-44 of the brief which is paragraph-29 of the Final Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.1059 of 2011, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order has been passed only in respect of the husband of the complainant/opposite party No.2 and not against these petitioners. Hence, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioners and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation against either of the petitioners, of deceiving the complainant or anyone by making any false or misleading representation or fraudulent or dishonest inducement nor is there any allegation that at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, the petitioners were bound by law or legal contract to protect the interests of the complainant or anyone else. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioners. 9. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioners. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the same is against the husband of the complainant/opposite party No.2 and there is no allegation against the petitioners of concealing or removing any property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, there is no allegation against the petitioners of abetting either by instigation, conspiracy or aiding the husband of the complainant/opposite party No.2 and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 11. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that all the offences in respect of which sufficient materials has been found by the learned Magistrate to proceed against the petitioners as well, is also made out against them. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under Section 31 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is concerned, the same provides for a penalty for breach of protection by the respondent concerned. Section 2 (q) of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines “respondent” as respondent means any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act. 13. Section 2 (q) of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines “respondent” as respondent means any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act. 13. Now, coming to the facts of the case; it is crystal clear from the Final Order passed in Complaint Case No.1059 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad that the said order was passed only against the husband of the complainant/opposite party No.2 and though the petitioners were also the respondent Nos.3 and 4 of that complaint case, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, has, in no uncertain manner, has expressed that no formal order is passed against these petitioners. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 31 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not made out against the petitioners. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:- (i) there must be an entrustment, (ii) there must be misappropriation or conversion to one's own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract; as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641 . 15. Now, coming to the facts of the case; so far as the contention of the complainant/opposite party No.2 that the petitioners retained her Streedhan in the year 2008, is concerned, the same was admittedly the subject matter of C.P. Case No.624 of 2010 in which the petitioners were the accused persons. Apart from that, there is no allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioners nor is there any allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property by the petitioners. In the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 16. In the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:- (i) Accused cheated a person; (ii) At the time of offence accused was bound by law or legal contract to protect the interests of the person whom he cheated; (iii) The obligation related to the transaction involving the cheating; (iv) Accused had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause wrongful loss to the person cheated and whose interest he was bound to protect. 17. The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows:- (i) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission; (ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property; as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V. Y. Jose vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 3 SCC 78 . 18. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against either of the petitioners of deceiving any person either by making any false or misleading representation or by other action or omission. In the absence of this essential ingredient and also in the absence of other essential ingredients that, at the time of occurrence of the alleged offence, the petitioners were bound by law or legal contract to protect the interests of the person, who has been cheated, this Court is of the considered view, that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 19. 19. So far as the offence punishable under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:- (i) The accused concealed or removed any property of himself or any other person or assisted in concealment or removal thereof; (ii) He did it dishonestly or fraudulently; or (iii) He dishonestly released any demand or claim to which he is entitled. 20. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of concealing or removing any property. In the absence of any allegation regarding such essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 21. So far as the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:- (i) Abetment either by instigation, conspiracy or aiding; (ii) The principal act abetted must have been committed. 22. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is no allegation against either of the petitioners of abetting anyone either by instigation, conspiracy or aiding and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners cannot be implicated in the offences committed by the husband of the complainant/opposite party No.2 with the aid of either Section 109 or Section 120B or Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 23. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that since none of the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners is made out against them; even if the entire allegations made against them are considered to be true in their entirety. So, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.840 of 2021 as well as the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 24. So, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.840 of 2021 as well as the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 24. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.840 of 2021 as well as the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above. 25. So far as the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the Criminal Revision No.62 of 2024 which was filed against the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is concerned, the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad on the ground of limitation; as the same was filed after a delay of 628 days but since the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has not gone into the merits of the case, hence, this Court is not interfering with the said order. 26. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.