Lahiri, J.- This is an application for quahing a criminal proceeding pending since 1977. The action has a Civil flavour. Its nature and character speak eloquently that it should have entered in a different forum which adjudicates civil actions. This impression, I gather upon reading the complaint. The learned Magistrate who had issued summons against the accused under Sections 420/406 I.P.C. duly realised his mistake in summoning the accused but at a belated stage of the proceedings. While making the order for custody of the subject matter of the case., the learned Magistrate exclaimed that the allegations were of "'civil nature" and articulated thus "apart from that it is evident that the claim of the claimant is of civil nature". (Underscored at this end) 2. Against the order of custody pendent proceedings the complainant moved the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, at Dhubri, for setting aside the order. The learned Judge set it aside and directed the machinery to be deposited in "Malkhana" or in the alternative, in "the Zimma of a third person". 3. Two points have been taken in the criminal revision. First, that it is a fit case in which this Court, in exercise of its inherent power, should quash the proceedings. Secondly, the impugned order directing the machinery to be kept in the police Malkhana, and, if there is no space in the Malkhana, the machinery (a lathe machine) should be kept in the Zimma of a responsible third party, pending disposal of the criminal case. The learned Sessions Judge held that in view of the findings of the then trying Magistrate that it was a case of civil nature, the case should be transferred to some other Magistrate, and, transferred the case accordingly. 4. The statement of facts set forth in the complaint are extracted below : “Most respectfully sheweth that on 15.6.74 the complai­nant purchased one 8 feet lathe machine and a drilling machine at Rs. 4101/- from Amar Motor Works. 4. The statement of facts set forth in the complaint are extracted below : “Most respectfully sheweth that on 15.6.74 the complai­nant purchased one 8 feet lathe machine and a drilling machine at Rs. 4101/- from Amar Motor Works. The accused persons own a motor repairing workshop under the name and style of "Yakub Engineering Workshop" and requested the complainant to install the aforesaid lathe and drill machine in their workshop till the same is installed at a separate place and it was further agreed that whatever would be the income out of those machi­nes, half of the same would be paid to the complainant as rent and the rest would be appropriated by them and whenever the complainant desires he may take away the said machine. When the complainant requested the accused persons So return the aforesaid machines to establish his own workshop, the accused persons started delaying-the accu­sed caused a loss of at least Rs.4101/- (Rupees four thousand one hundred one) by not returning the said machi­nes on 22.1.77 and thereby committed breach of faith with the complainant with a view to misappropriate the machineries. It is, therefore, prayed that the said lathe and drilling machines seized by a search warrant and a warrant of arrest be issued against the accused persons to secure the ends of justice" 5. Therefore, it will be seen that the complainant allowed the accused to retain the property-one of the accused, Mustt. Piyara Khatun is the wife and the other accused is the son of the main accused Yasin Mia. It is evident that as far back as on 15.6.74 the machine, valued at Rs. 4101/-, was made over to the accused for using the same on condition of sharing the income equally between the complainant and the accused. There is on complaint that the share of the complainant was not paid by the accused as agreed upon. The only grouse is about the deferment in delivery of the machine when asked for. Accor­ding to the complainant the alleged lingering amounted to swin­dling or cheating and also a breach of trust. The retention, accor­ding to the complainant was "to misappropriate the machinery". 6. The only grouse is about the deferment in delivery of the machine when asked for. Accor­ding to the complainant the alleged lingering amounted to swin­dling or cheating and also a breach of trust. The retention, accor­ding to the complainant was "to misappropriate the machinery". 6. The allegations even if accepted at the face value, do not make out any case either under section 420 or under section 406 I.P.C The requisite dishonest criminal intent under section 420 I.P.C. cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the accused could not honour the promise. The essential requisites of the offence are : 1. Deception of any person. 2. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person. (i) to deliver any property to any person, or, (ii) to consent that any person should retain any property, or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which that person would not do or omit to do, but for the deception, and which act or omission causes or likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 7. Is there any allegation that the accused persons caused any deception? Is there any material in the complaint that the accused caused the complainant to believe what was false or mis­leading as a matter of fact or lead him into error? The answers to these questions must be in the negative. There is no alle­gation of any false representation by the accused. Deception, the quintessence of the offence, must precede, to generate indu­cement in the mind of the person deceived. Such deceptions may be caused by express words or deportment. However, the act or conduct, which allegedly caused the deception must be pic­tured in the complainant. There is nothing in the complaint to show what the accused did or abstained from doing that caused the complainant to believe what was false or what misguided the complainant. Therefore, there is no element of deception in the complaint nor is there any component of fraudulent or dis­honest act or omission which may be even remotely characterized as fraudulent or dishonest inducement. There must be some re­presentation and it must relate to a certain future event it must be deceptive in nature and character which the accused knew to b; fake at the time when it was made. There must be some re­presentation and it must relate to a certain future event it must be deceptive in nature and character which the accused knew to b; fake at the time when it was made. The complaint at the highest depicts that there was a failure to fulfill the alle­ged promise said to have been made by the accused. However, this by itself cannot be an offence of swindling or cheating as delineated in Section 415, I.P.C. 8. In State of Kerala vs. A. Pillai, AIR 1973 S.C. 326 the Supreme Court held as under : "To hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. Such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfill the promise". It follows, therefore, that in the instant case the essential ingredient of the offence, namely, the criminal intent of the accused is conspicuously absent. Therefore, reading the complaint as a whole, I have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the avows in the complaint, taken at the face value and acc­epted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence of cheating, and, the charge under section 420 I.P.C. must be quashed. 9. However, there is another allegation of criminal breach of trust against the accused under section 406 I.P.C. The ingre­dients of the offence are- 1. That the accused was entrusted with property or with the dominion over it ; 2. That the accused, (i) misappropriated it, or (ii) conve­rted it to his own use, or (iii) used it, or (iv) disposed of it. 3. That the accused did so in violation of (i) any direc­tion of law prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharged, or (ii) any legal contract, ex­press or implied, which the accused had made touching the discharge of such trust. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust it is not enough to allege that the property has been retained. It must be shown that the accused disposed the property in some way other than that in which he was bound to use and he did so dishonestly. Mere retention of property cannot, raise a presumption of dis­honest misappropriation unless there are supplementary material. It must be shown that the accused disposed the property in some way other than that in which he was bound to use and he did so dishonestly. Mere retention of property cannot, raise a presumption of dis­honest misappropriation unless there are supplementary material. There is no allegation of conversion of the property to the exclusive use of the accused. The machinery had been allowed to be retained by the complainant on certain terms and condi­tions. There is even no grievance in the complaint that the accused ever withheld the payments of the agreed shares. Nothing has been shown as to the manner of misappropriation or appro­priation; or conversion with any dishonest intention. There can-mot be any breach of trust, if there is no dishonest use or disposal-mere retention of the property inspire of demand does act fall within the ambit of the offence styled as criminal "breach of trust" under section 406 I.P.C. Mere breach of contract does not give rise to a criminal action under section 406 I.P.C. Appropriation or conversion must be with the inten­tion of making wrongful gain or to cause wrongful loss. In the instant case "the status quo" was maintained. There was no unlawful gain or unlawful loss caused to either parties. The terms and conditions of the alleged agreement as to the payment of shares of income was never affected. The essential question to be asked in a case of this nature is whether the accused was actuated by dishonest intention or not? Is there an iota of material to disclose dishonest intention of the accused? Even an act of appropriation without dishonest intention does not bring home a charge of "criminal misappropriation". The act of appropriation or misappropriation may be a good cause of action for a civil suit. However, if the property is dishonestly" misappropriated, it conies within "the offence" styled as criminal misappropriation. It is interesting to note that there is even no bald assertion that the alleged misappropriation was "with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person, or wrongful loss to another". This is enough to conclude that the complaint, read as a whole and accepted in its entirety and at its face value do not constitute the offence of Section 406 I.P.C. 11. Therefore, in exercise of the inherent power of this Court under section 482 Cr. This is enough to conclude that the complaint, read as a whole and accepted in its entirety and at its face value do not constitute the offence of Section 406 I.P.C. 11. Therefore, in exercise of the inherent power of this Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. I quash the criminal procee­ding to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. 12. In the result the petition is allowed. However, the complainant may pursue his remedy in the Civil Court, if so advised. The subject matter of the criminal case should be re­turned to the person from whom it seized. Send down the records forthwith.