FAIZANUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision under sections 397 and 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the TCodet), has been filed by the accused/applicant for setting aside the order dated 14th May, 1986, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satne (Shri R. S. Rathore), in Criminal Case No. 424 of 1986, taking cognizence of an offence under section 406 of the Indian Panel Code against the applicant and issuing process against him, in exercise of his discreation under section 204 of the Code. A prayer has been made for quashing the criminal proceedings launched by the non-applicant against the applicant. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts which gave rise to the filing of this Revision may be briefly stated thus: The non-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant/ Company), is a company having its registered office at Calcutta and one of its units at Setna which is engaged in manufacture of Cement. The complainant gave an appointment to the applicant as a Siemens Computer Maintenance Engineer, in its company at Satne by appointment letter dated 5th November, 1981, in pursuance of which the applicant joined the service with effect from 15. 12. 1981. Thereafter a detailed letter of appointment dated 6. 1. 1982 was issued to the applicant stating therein the service conditions etc. Later on, the work of the applicant was found satisfactory by the Company and, therefore, he was confirmed on the said post. Thereafter, the applicant was selected for training in West Germany. The complainant/company obtained a bond dated stood a 24th May, 1982, from the applicant and the father of the applicant surety whereby they agreed that the applicant will serve the Company for a period of 5 years from the date of completion of the training a broad and in the event of failure to do so the applicant and his father as a surety, jointly and severally shall compensate the Company in terms of the said bond. The applicant joined his training on 28/6/1982 in West Germany organized by M/s Siemens at Karlsruhe. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that after joining the training in West Germany, the Company received reports from M/s Siemens at Karlsruhe that the applicant was not taking proper interest in the training programme and acted with gross negligence. The applicant joined his training on 28/6/1982 in West Germany organized by M/s Siemens at Karlsruhe. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that after joining the training in West Germany, the Company received reports from M/s Siemens at Karlsruhe that the applicant was not taking proper interest in the training programme and acted with gross negligence. The applicant did not mend his ways despite repeated advice and warnings of the complainant/company as well as that of his father. Consequently, the company had no option but to ask the applicant to return back to India. The applicant after returning back to India on 19th September, 1982, instead of resuming his duties in the factory of the complainant/company at. Satne, for 5 years as per stipulation, the applicant took up service in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, at Korba, on 21st August, 1983. ( 4 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the complainant/ company filed a complaint under section 406 Penal read with section 420 of the Code against the applicant before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satne, alleging interalia that the company had agreed to spend Rs. 57,631 I- in the training of the applicant abroad on his specific assurance and representation that he would honestly and faithfully complete the training and serve the company for 5 years thereafter and it was on this assurance that the company had incurred all the training expenses and paid for his journey to West Germany for undergoing the training. It has been alleged in the complaint that right from the very beginning, the applicant has no intention of undergoing training faithfully and honestly as his intention was to deceive the company by making a dishonest, false assurance and representation and if the company had known the real intention of the applicant, it would not have sent the applicant for training nor would have spent huge sum amounting to Rs. 57,631/ -. The Company, therefore, made a demand from the applicant and his father for a sum of Rs. 57,000/- representing compensation being the amount which was spent by the complainant/company on account of salary during the period of training and the amount spent in the training etc. But the applicant neither resumed his duties nor paid the said amount and instead took up service with Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. 57,000/- representing compensation being the amount which was spent by the complainant/company on account of salary during the period of training and the amount spent in the training etc. But the applicant neither resumed his duties nor paid the said amount and instead took up service with Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. It is, therefore, alleged that the applicant thus dishonestly, misappropriated the aforesaid amount and committed the offence punishable under section 406 read with section 420 of the Penal Code. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate after examining Shri M. L. Mathur, Senior Personnel Manager, of the complainant! Company, through whom the complaint was filed and two other witnesses under section 200 of the Code and formed opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant under section 406 of the Penal Code and therefore, by the impugned order dated 14/5/1986 took cognizance, registered the complaint for an offence under section 406 of the Penal Code and issued bailable warrants against the applicant. It is this order which led to the filing of this revision for setting aside the same as well as for quashing of the proceedings. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant contended that there is no sufficient material on record for presuming that applicant had committed an offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406 of the Code and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance for the said offence and issuing process against the applicant. He, therefore, urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the proceedings deserve to be quashed. On perusal of the complaint, the statements of the witnesses recorded by the learned Magistrate and the documents filed along with complaint, I find that there is much substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and, therefore, this revision deserves to be allowed. ( 7 ) SECTION 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, inter-alia provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is in exercise of this extraordinary jurisdiction that the High Court is empowered to quash certain proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be on abuse of the process of that the process of the Court or ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. This inherent power vests in the High Courts with a view to achieve a salutary public purpose that a proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or any prosecution for which there is no prima facie material. This question has to be determined on examination of the facts whether the material on record, if unrebutted is such on the basis of which a conviction could reasonably be possible or not. It is settled law that if there is neither sufficient ground nor material for proceeding with the prosecution, the proceeding has to be quashed. See State of Karnataka v. Muniswami and Trilok Singh v. Satya Dec. In the case of Smt. Nagnwwa v. Veeranna, their Lordships observed that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside. (i) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the witnesses at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused. (ii) While the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reached conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (iii) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process, is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelvant or inadmissible; and (iv) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defacts, such as, want of sanction, or be sence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. ( 8 ) BEFORE coming to the facts of the present case, it would also be relevant to discuss the ambit and scope of the provision of Section 406 of the Penal Code. A bare reading of the said section would reveal that it applies to one who is in any manner entrusted with the property or dominion over the property. A bare reading of the said section would reveal that it applies to one who is in any manner entrusted with the property or dominion over the property. A necessary element of the offence of criminal breach of trust is that where should be entrustment of the property to the accused. In other words, the accused should have received the property of others in any manner and held it on behalf of another, so that he should be the trustee of, of the property. Entrustment will arise whenever something, whether it be money Or any other thing, is given to some other person with some direction as to how it should be dealt with. Entrustment is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in different contexts. In its most general significance all it imports in a handing of the possession for some purpose which may not imply the conferring of any proprietory rights at all. An entrustment contemplates a relationship whereby the owner of the property makes it ever to another person to be retained by him until certain contingency arises. In that case, the person who transfers possession of the property to second party still remains the legal owner of the property and the property in whose favour possession is so transferred has only the custody of the property to be kept or disposed of by him for the benefit of the other party, the person so put in possession only obtaining a special interest by way of a claim for money advanced or spent upon the safe keeping of the thing or such other incidental expenses as may have been incurred by him. Thus according to section 406 the ownership and beneficial interest in the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be in some person other than the accused himself and the accused must held it on account of some other person or in some way for his benefit. But if, the property is absolutely handed over to the accused and not merely entrusted to him on account of some other person or for the benefit of some other person, no offence of criminal breach of trust can be said to be made out. But if, the property is absolutely handed over to the accused and not merely entrusted to him on account of some other person or for the benefit of some other person, no offence of criminal breach of trust can be said to be made out. ( 9 ) NOW, on the analogy of the aforesaid discussions, it may be said that the word entrusted when used with respect to money means that the money has been transferred to the accused under circumstances which show that notwithstanding its delivery to the accused, the property in it continues to vest in the person transferring or delivering the same to the accused and the money remains in possession and control of the accused as a bailor and in trust for the person who transferred it to him as a bailor to be restored to him or applied in accordance with his instructions. ( 10 ) ANOTHER important aspect and one of the ingrediants of section 406 is the dishonest intention so as to constitute that offence. In fact, dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under section 406 of the Penal Code. Any breach of trust is not an offence. It may be intentional but without being dishonest or it may appear to be dishonest but without being really so, for example if the evidence and material on record indicated that the relevent time when the criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, a person accused of that offence was not found in a normal state of mind and he was unable to understand that what he was doing was wrongful then in such a case also the Magistrate must be shown in forming the opinion that the accused had committed that offence because in the presence of such evidence the existence of dishonest intention which is an essential ingredient of the offence would be excluded. Having regard to the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Negawwa (Supra), the ambit and scope of section 406 discussed above, I shall now proceed to examine the facts of the present case to find out whether there is sufficient material for proceeding against the applicant for the alleged offence punishable under section 406 of the Penal Code. ( 11 ) A persual of the documents filed with the complaint, photo-stat copies of which are annexed in this revision as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded in the Court by the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code, would reveal that there is no material whatsoever to indicate that the alleged amount of Rs. 57,631/- spent by the complainant/company in the training of the applicant was paid to the applicant by way of entrustment and the Company still retained the control, dominion and proprietary rights over the said amount. There is equally no material to show that the Company had to transfer the possession of the said amount to the applicant only as a trustee and the company itself retained legal ownership over the same. On the contrary, a reading of the Bond/ Agreement will go to show that the amount was spent or paid absolutely to the applicant to be recovered from him and the surety jointly severally, in the event of failure to comply with the terms and conditions thereof. That being so, the essential ingredients for the offence can not be said to be made out. ( 12 ) ALTHOUGH, it has been alleged in the complaint that at the time of selection of the applicant for training in West Germany, the applicant had assured and represented to the Company and its officers that on being sent for training to West Germany, he would undergo the training honestly and faithfully and shall complete the same within the stipulated time and it was on account of this assurance and representation that the company had agreed to bear all the expenses of the training and it was on this assurance to company had paid a sum of Rs. 57,631. 00 to the applicant for his journey to West Germany and for undertaking the training, but persual of the statement of Shri Mathur, Senior Personnel Manager of the Company, as well as the statements of Shri Radhashyam, Vice President of the Company and Shri Sudhir Kumar, Accountant of the Company, examined under section 3 200 of the Code, before issuing process would reveal that none of these witnesses made the statement that the applicant had ever given the afore-mentioned assurance or that it was on account of the alleged mis-representation by the applicant that the payment for undergoing the training were made to him. On the company these witnesses have emphasised that the applicant had entered into an agreement on 24th May 1982,that if he is sent to West Germany for training. Then on his return, he would serve the Company for a period of five years failing which he would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Company as expenditure incurred in the said training. It may also be pointed out that before filing the Criminal complaint against the applicant, the complainant/ company had issued a notice dated 4. 2. 1983 to the applicant and his father a photo-stat copy of which has been filed as Annexure-A. There was no allegation that the applicant had given any assurance or made any misrepresentation in securing the alleged amount. The assertion in the notice was that after his returned from West Germany, he violated the terms of the bond/agreement executed by him and, therefore, he was liable to make good the loss by paying Rs. 50,000/- to the Company, failing which the company shall take recourse for recovery of the said amount. Thus there was no material or any evidence before the learned Magistrate to show that the applicant had made any mis-representation in securing the alleged amount from the company, which is alleged to have been mis-appropriated by him. On the contrary, according to the assertion of the complainant the applicant did go to West Germany for tainting from which it cannot be inferred that he had any criminal intention. ( 13 ) A parts from the above facts, it may also be pointed out that from the documents filed by the complainant/ company itself along with complaint before learned Magistrate it appears that the applicant had developed some mental-ab-normality and there was something wrong with hills, on account of which he lost interest in the training and he could not successfully undergo the training. In this behalf a reference may be made to document No. 15 filed by the company with complaint. This document No. 15 is a report from M/s Siemens at Karlsruhe, West Germany, called by the company itself showing the behaviour of the applicant from 28th June 1982 to 9. 9. 1982. In this behalf a reference may be made to document No. 15 filed by the company with complaint. This document No. 15 is a report from M/s Siemens at Karlsruhe, West Germany, called by the company itself showing the behaviour of the applicant from 28th June 1982 to 9. 9. 1982. A persual of this document itself will go to show that some times the applicant was seen waiting at the door of the class room, playing with the children at the hostel and some times uttaring the words that his blood boils when he sees the Englishman and hence he cannot attend the course and that he refuse return trip to India saying that he has to still above the world political problems. It was also observed that the applicant could be hurt due to uncontrolable actions and that it was feared that he may physically assault. According to this report on 31st August, 1982, the applicant threw out most of his belongings out of the window. A persual of the entire report goes to show that the applicant was not behaving as normal man and there was something wrong with him which upset him and disturbed his mind, Ultimately, the applicant returned to India and landed at Bombay on 19th September, 1982, where his sister got him examined by a doctor at Bombay on 21st September, 1982, who certified that the applicant was suffering from Psychotic state. After some time, the applicant was taken to Jabalpur where he was examined by Psychiatrist in Medical College, Jabalpur, who as per his certificates, Annexure D-3, D-4 and D-5, diagnosis that it was a case of Persniod Pchizophrenie. From all these facts it does appear that during the relevant period the applicant was not in a normal state of mind which rendered him unable to understand that what he was doing was wrong or improper. ( 14 ) LASTLY, it may be pointed out the bedrock of the Companys complaint is that the bond! agreement dated 21st May, 1982, document No. 7, which was executed by the applicant and his father as a surety in favour of the company, binding themselves jointly and severally to pay on demand without demand to the complainant/company the sum of money aggregating to Rs. agreement dated 21st May, 1982, document No. 7, which was executed by the applicant and his father as a surety in favour of the company, binding themselves jointly and severally to pay on demand without demand to the complainant/company the sum of money aggregating to Rs. 50,000/- representing compensation being the amount to be spent by the company on account of salary during the period of training plus the amount spent by the company on Air/train fares, board and lodging and other miscelleneous expenses for the training period. The relevant part of the said bond/agreement which is necessary for the purposes of this revition is as under: Now, the condition of this agreement is that in the event the Employee fails to continue in service for the period of 5 years as agreed above and leaves the service earlier then the said employee and the Surety jointly shall compensate the Employer for the period less served then 5 years on pro-rata basis for each year (part of the year less than 6 months will be ignored and more than 6 months will be covered as full year) and upon making such payments this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. Otherwise it shall remain in full force and by virtue of this Agreement the compensation and expenses as mentioned above shall be realised from the EMPLOYEE and his SURETY through Court of Law. ( 15 ) A bare reading of the relevent part of the bond referred to above will go to show that according to the agreement the applicant had bound himself to serve the company for the period of 5 years from the date of completion of training abroad and in the event of his failure to do so, the applicant and his surety were jointly and severally liable to compensate the company in terms of the conditions of the bond/agreement reproduced above, by making payment of the compensation to the company where after the agreement shall become ineffective. But in case of nonpayment of the said compensation the company was entitled to realise the same through Court of Law. It is thus more or less a matter which falls within the realm of civil dispute capable of settlement in the civil Courts. But in case of nonpayment of the said compensation the company was entitled to realise the same through Court of Law. It is thus more or less a matter which falls within the realm of civil dispute capable of settlement in the civil Courts. ( 16 ) THUS, after examining the entire material on record, I find that the same is not of such a nature on the basis of which conviction or the applicant can be said to be reasonably possible and that being so to allow the proceeding to continue would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of the Court. In these circumstances, the end of justice requires that the impugned order to be set aside and the proceedings to be quashed. Thus, even assuming for a moment that the allegation made by the complainant are substantially correct, yet having regard to the nature of the bond/agreement the dispute raised by the complainant/company is purely of a civil nature. ( 17 ) IN the result, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process to the applicant is set aside and the proceedings are altogether quashed. .