ORDER : C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.962 of 2018 of Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is now pending as C.C.No.821 of 2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Forest), Nedumangad, filed this Crl.M.C under Section 482 Cr.PC praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 406 of IPC . 2. The prosecution case is that the accused, after promising to marry the de facto complainant, conducted the betrothal ceremony on 26.03.2017 and fixed the marriage on 24.08.2017 and thereafter, refused to marry her. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner are believed as such, the same will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC . Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner. 4. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Though notice was served on the de facto complainant/ 2 nd respondent, she did not turn up. 6. In this case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner is that, he promised to marry the de facto complainant on 24.08.2017 and after fixing the date of marriage, he failed to marry her. 7. Section 405 of IPC which defines “criminal breach of trust” reads as follows:- “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 discharge, 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".” 8. On a perusal of the above provision, it can be seen that in order to constitute criminal breach of trust, there should be entrustment of property. In the instant case, the prosecution has no case that the de facto complainant entrusted any property with the petitioner. 9. In the decision in Roshan Lal Raina v. State of Jammu and Kashmir ( 1983 KHC 584 ) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, without proof of entrustment of property, the offence of criminal breach of trust is not made out. 9. In the decision in Roshan Lal Raina v. State of Jammu and Kashmir ( 1983 KHC 584 ) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, without proof of entrustment of property, the offence of criminal breach of trust is not made out. In the instant case also, since there is no entrustment of property with the petitioner, no criminal breach of trust is made out and as such, the allegations levelled against the petitioner does not constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC . Therefore, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.821 of 2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Forest), Nedumangad, arising from Crime No.962 of 2018 of Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, stands quashed under Section 482 Cr.PC.