JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY , J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though the opposite party no.2 has appeared through a counsel but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance and order issuing summons dated 11.08.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No. 1515 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found that the offences punishable under Section 323/341/406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on the basis of the materials in the record and issued the summoning order. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons has made the complainant a guarantor in the loan account of Shivani Devi in respect of purchasing a car after taking a loan of Rs.6,20,000/-, even though the petitioner never stood a guarantor in the said purchase and only took a solar lamp for which payment has already been made. There is further allegation that the signature of the complainant has been forged and the petitioner is abusing the complainant and is doing marpit (beating) and is demanding the loan amount. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Budh Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. , 2025: JHHC :34204 that in that case, this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another , (2014) 10 SCC 663 , paragraph-18 of which reads as under :- “18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.”( Emphasis supplied) Wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that property was retained by the accused person but it must also be shown that the accused person dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 6. It is next submitted that in that case, this Court also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2019) 9 SCC 148 , para -11 of which reads as under:-:- “11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment. (emphasis supplied)” wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that a mere retention of the property would not amount to dishonest misappropriation of the property. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ruchika Kakar Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another , 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1769 wherein this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. C.B.I. , (2015) 4 SCC 609 para - 43 of which reads as under:- “43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he can be implicated is in those cases where the staturoty regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically incorporating such a provision”. and submits that it is a settled principle of law that for an individual to be made an accused on the allegation that he has perpetrated the commission of any offence on behalf of the company, there has to be sufficient evidence for his active role coupled with the criminal intent and the second situation in which he can be impleaded in those cases where statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability by specifically incorporating such a provision. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the complaint has been filed for wreaking vengeance to prevent Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited from exercising its contractual and statutory rights under the loan agreement and realise huge outstanding amounts, which are due and payable from the informant. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the complaint has been filed for wreaking vengeance to prevent Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited from exercising its contractual and statutory rights under the loan agreement and realise huge outstanding amounts, which are due and payable from the informant. It is next submitted that the petitioner as an authorized representative of the company filed complaint case no. 2314 of 2019 on 04.10.2019 which upon being referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Daltonganj (Town) P.S. Case No. 416 of 2019 has been instituted and this complaint has been filed subsequent thereto with an ulterior motive and as a counter blast to the said F.I.R. It is next submitted that the company, of the petitioner is the authorized representative, is not engaged in providing loan for solar lamp and the petitioner was a legal officer and he has no role in providing loan to the customers of the company. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of wrongfully restraining the complainant. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of entrustment of any property or any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 9. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences punishable under Section 323/341/406 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petitioner being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredients are as under:- (i) There must be an entrustment. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredients are as under:- (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 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 , (2003) 3 SCC 641 . 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of entrustment of any property nor is there any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. In the absence of the essential ingredients, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code are as under:- (i) the accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim. (ii) the accused did so with intention of causing hurt or with knowledge that he will thereby cause hurt to the victim. 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant or anyone else. Merely, alleging marpit without any specific allegation of causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant or anyone else, will certainly not constitute the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are as under:- (i) the accused obstructed a person, (ii) he did it voluntarily, (iii) it prevented such person from proceeding in certain direction in which he had the right to proceed. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of obstructing the complainant or anyone else voluntarily, in which direction the complainant or any other person had the right to proceed. In the absence, of such allegation, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 16. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has decided to proceed against the petitioner is in fact made out even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. 17. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance and order issuing summons dated 11.08.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No. 1515 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found that the offences punishable under Section 323/341/406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on the basis of the materials in the record and issued the summoning order, be quashed and set aside qua the portioner. 18. 18. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance and order issuing summons dated 11.08.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No. 1515 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found that the offences punishable under Section 323/341/406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on the basis of the materials in the record and issued the summoning order, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 19. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.