A. K. DUTTA. J. ( 1 ) -BY the instant revisional application under sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner-accused has prayed the Court for quashing the impugned order dated 29. 3. 89 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta, in Case No. C/1071 of 1988 before him, and for quashing the relevant proceedings on the grounds set forth therein. ( 2 ) ON a petition of complaint filed by the opposite party No. 1 against the petitioner-accused herein on the allegations hereinbelow indicated, the learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the same and upon examination of the complainant and one witness present, was of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against him (petitioner-accused) under section 408, I. P. C. , and had accordingly directed issue of process against him thereunder by his relevant order dated 25. 5. 88. ( 3 ) IT is alleged in the petition of complaint that the petitioner-accused was appointed as Supervisor of the complainant-Company in the you 1962, and he was subsequently transferred to its Branch Office at Madras, being promoted as Senior Manager/branch Manager of that Branch, accountable to the Registered Office at Calcutta. He was permitted by the Company to occupy the furnished first floor flat at premises No. 24, Had Street, Taylor's Estate, Kolambakkam, Madras, rented by the Company on or about February, 1977 for accommodating its officer posted at the Madras Branch Office. A list of the furnitures and fittings at the said premises has been annexed to the petition of complaint. The accused-petitioner was to handover vacant possession of the said first floor flat to the Company on his transfer/resignation/ termination of service, as the case may be. The petitioner-accused had subsequently tendered his resignation by a registered letter dated 15. 6. 87, addressed to the Company at its registered and Head Office at Calcutta, for the reasons indicated therein. The complainant-Company by its letter dated 18. 6. 87 had accepted the said resignation stating therein that he would be relieved from his duty on his handing over the accounts documents, other papers, car, telephone and possession of the aforesaid flat in proper manner to the Deputy Managing Director on 20. 6. 87. The complainant-Company by its letter dated 18. 6. 87 had accepted the said resignation stating therein that he would be relieved from his duty on his handing over the accounts documents, other papers, car, telephone and possession of the aforesaid flat in proper manner to the Deputy Managing Director on 20. 6. 87. On that day, the petitioner-accused had handed over charge of the Madras Office and laboratory to the said Deputy Managing Director of the Company, excepting the said Flat. On representation made by him (petitioner-accused) he was allowed to stay there for a further period of two days for enabling him to make alternative arrangement for his accommodation, in the meantime. But he (petitioner) had failed to make over vacant possession of the aforesaid furnished flat to the Company despite several reminders. Per contra, he had unauthorisedly and with ulterior motive sent a letter to the landlord thereof falsely stating therein that vacant possession of the same would be handed over to him (landlord) as he (petitioner) has retired from his service and the Company would not pay the rent therefore any more. The complainant-Company had thereafter repeatedly asked him (petitioner) to hand over vacant possession of the aforesaid rented flat with the furnitures and fittings therein to it, which he had refused to do, and is still wrongfully withholding the same with the furnitures and fittings therein, worth about Rs. 8,000/- only. The complainant-Company had thus been constrained to file a civil suit before the City Civil Court at Madras praying, inter-alia, for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from handing over or surrendering possession of the aforesaid Company's rented flat to any other person, other than the Company, which is still pending. It is alleged by the complainant in the petition of complaint that the petitioner-accused has dishonestly converted for his own use the aforesaid furnitures and fittings, as mentioned in the annexure annexed thereto, which was entrusted by him to the Company, and had thereby committed an offence punishable under section 408, I. P. C. , praying the Court for appropriate action therefore. As already indicated above, the learned Magistrate concerned upon consideration of the aforesaid petition of complaint and the statements of the complainant and another witness had directed issue of process against the petitioner-accused under section 408, I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE relevant facts alleged in the petition of complaint do not appear to be very much disputed by the petitioner-accused except the alleged conversion of the furnitures and fittings in the flat in question for his own use, as alleged therein. Admittedly, the petitioner had been in occupation of the flat in question at Madras on his transfer there on promotion as Senior Manager/branch Manager of that Branch Office. It is neither disputed that the petitioner had been enjoying the furnitures and fittings therein, which was entrusted by him to the Company, while occupying the flat in question. The question as to whether the flat in question had been rented by the petitioner or by the Company is a matter of little moment for the present purpose. The petitioner-accused strongly denies the complainant's allegation that he has dishonestly converted the furnitures and fittings in the flat in question for his own use, as alleged. ( 5 ) IT would pretty clearly appear from the series of Annexures annexed to the instant revisional application, which could very well be translated into relevant pieces of evidence and may thus be taken into consideration by this Court while considering the question of quashing the instant proceedings under section 402 of the Code (in terms of the decision in N. C. Nag Pal, 1979 (2) CHN 198 with which I am in complete agreement), that the petitioner-accused by his registered letter dated 15. 6. 87 addressed to the Managing Director of the complainant-company at its Calcutta Office had tendered resignation from the expiry of one month from the date of the said letter. The Company by their letter dated 18. 6. 87 had accepted the said resignation from the date of the said letter (15. 6. 87) in terms thereof. The Annexure 'f' to the revisional application would further make clear that the petitioner-accused had handed over cash, documents, car, residential telephone, laboratory instruments, office and Laboratory's keys etc. to the Deputy Managing Director on 26. 6. 87. The Company by their subsequent letter dated 26. 6. 6. 87) in terms thereof. The Annexure 'f' to the revisional application would further make clear that the petitioner-accused had handed over cash, documents, car, residential telephone, laboratory instruments, office and Laboratory's keys etc. to the Deputy Managing Director on 26. 6. 87. The Company by their subsequent letter dated 26. 6. 87 appears to have dismissed the petitioner-accused from services with immediate effect, for the reasons stated therein, though his resignation had been accepted by the Company by its earlier letter dated 18. 6. 87. The petitioner-accused by his relevant letter dated 30. 6. 87 Annexure 'k'), addressed to the complainant-Company, had clearly indicated therein that the Company's furnitures we kept with him in safe custody and he had requested the Company thereunder to send authorised person (of the Company) to collect the same before he (petitioner) moves out of the flat. By his subsequent registered letter dated 27. 7. 87, addressed to the complainant-Company at Calcutta, the petitioner had again requested the Company to send its authorised person for shifting the telephone and collecting the furnitures at the earliest possible time. By yet another subsequent letter, with reference to his aforesaid two previous letters dated 30. 6. 87 and 27. 7. 87, the petitioner-accused had over again requested the complainant-Company to take back the furnitures by 26th September, indicating therein that he would not be responsible -for the same on the Company's failure to do so, further stating therein that though the telephone had been shifted, the furnitures in question had not been taken back by the Company despite the aforesaid letters. In view of the aforesaid uncontroverted materials on record it could hardly be held prima facie that the accused-petitioner had any intention to dishonestly convert the furnitures and fittings in the flat in question for his own use, as alleged by the complainant-Company, Per contra, the materials on record, as indicated above, would clearly seem to indicate that the petitioner-accused had been insisting upon the complainant-Company from time to time for taking back the furnitures and fittings in the flat under his occupation after he had tendered resignation by his letter dated 15. 6. 87, which had been accepted by the Company by its letter dated 18. 6. 87. 6. 87, which had been accepted by the Company by its letter dated 18. 6. 87. But the complainant-Company appears to have pointedly failed, neglected, and ignored to take any step whatsoever for taking back the furnitures and fittings despite in terms of the repeated requests made by the petitioner-accused from time to time, for reasons best known to them, presumably for putting the petitioner-accused to inconvenience and for wrecking vengeance upon him for his making over possession of the flat in question to the landlord thereon, as appearing from the materials on record. ( 6 ) IN terms of section 406, I. P. C. , the following ingredients are essential to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant punishable under section 408, I. P. C. :-" (1) Entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property; (2) The person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i)of my direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or (ii)of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust. "this offence thus consists of any of four positive acts, namely, misappropriation, conversion, user, or disposal of property. Neither failure to account nor breach of contract, however dishonest, is actually and by itself the offence of criminal breach of trust. ( 7 ) THE materials on record, as already indicated above, do not seem to make out any or the aforesaid four positive acts, namely, misappropriation, conversion, user or disposal of the "furnitures and fittings in question by the petitioner-accused making him liable for prosecution for an alleged offence punishable under section 408, I. P. C. The petitioner-accused could not conceivably therefore have been prosecuted therefore. And, in view of the illustrations given in the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajanlal and Ors. And, in view of the illustrations given in the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajanlal and Ors. , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code by quashing a proceeding where a criminal proceeding is attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private or personal grudge. The Supreme Court in the decision in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. , AIR 1988 SC 709 , as well held that the legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of the case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage. As already indicated above, the uncontroverted allegations made by the complainant-Company against the petitioner-accused do not prima facie establish the alleged offence punishable under section 408, I. P. C. It would be also pertinent to recall the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of U. P. v. R. K. Srivastava and Ors. , AIR 1989 SC 2222 that it is a settle principle of law that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirity do not constitute an offence, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR should be quashed. , AIR 1989 SC 2222 that it is a settle principle of law that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirity do not constitute an offence, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR should be quashed. In the nature of the allegations made in the FIR the chances of ultimate conviction are also indeed bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the relevant criminal prosecution to continue. That being so, the relevant proceedings against the petitioner-accused is clearly liable to be quashed. ( 8 ) IN the result, the instant revisional application succeeds. The impugned order dated 29. 3. 89 passed by the learned Magistrate concerned in the relevant proceedings, being Case No. C/1071 of 1988, as also the proceedings in question against the petitioner be hereby quashed. The petitioner-accused be thus discharged from his bail bond, if on bail. Application succeeds.