JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2, yet 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 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 19.08.2025 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chhattarpur P.S. Case No.229 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1555 of 2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 351(3) & 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 against the petitioner and to quash the charge sheet passed in the said case and consequential reliefs. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the brother of the petitioner namely Mumtaj @ Lallu, took Rs.20,60,050/- from the informant for investment in his fish business by promising of alluring returns to the informant, but after taking the said money, closed his fish business and did not pay back the said amount taken by him from the informant. The only allegation against the petitioner is that upon the informant sending notice through his Advocate, the petitioner threatened the informant to kill him and told to forget the money given by him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. (2009) Supreme (SC) 1201 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must have the intention to cheat from the very inception and if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused person by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating and similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code and in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgement in the case of Ajay Mitra vs. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 11 . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the main allegation is against the brother of the petitioner and the petitioner has been roped in, in this case only for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of ever coming face to face with the informant and admittedly, the petitioner lives in the District of Aurangabad and there is no allegation against him that he ever came to District of Palamau, where the occurrence took place. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still none of the offences in respect of which charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance of the offences has been taken is made out against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being instrumental in criminal intimidation of the informant and during the investigation of the case, the allegation against the petitioner was found to be true and besides the criminal intimidation, the offence of cheating and the criminal breach of trust was also proved against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. 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 there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of cheating or committing criminal breach of trust. There is no allegation against the petitioner of inducing the informant or anyone else to part with any property or deceiving the informant or anyone else. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 is not made out. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the BNS, 2023 is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the BNS, 2023 are as follows:- (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 legal contract. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of entrustment of any property against the petitioner nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the BNS, 2023 is not made out. 11. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the BNS, 2023 is not made out. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 is concerned, the undisputed facts remains that the petitioner never came face to face with the informant and the petitioner is a resident of Aurangabad whereas the alleged occurrence took place in the District of Palamau. Keeping in view the dispute of the informant with the brother of the petitioner, in which the petitioner is no way concerned, there is no rhyme or reason why the petitioner will threaten the informant nor it has come on record as to in what manner the petitioner threatened the informant at Palamau from Aurangabad. 12. It is apparent that the allegation of criminal intimidation made only to rope in the petitioner in a criminal case for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. 13. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 19.08.2025 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chhattarpur P.S. Case No.229 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1555 of 2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 351(3) & 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 against the petitioner and the charge sheet submitted in the said case and the entire criminal proceeding, be quashed and set aside in respect of the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 19.08.2025 in connection with Chhattarpur P.S. Case No.229 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1555 of 2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 351(3) & 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 against the petitioner and the charge sheet submitted in the said case is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.