Judgment P.K.Sarin, J. 1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal prosecution including order dated 11th September, 1993, by which the cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 406/409/420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Jamshedpur, in connection with C/I Case No. 363/9S. 2. It appears that opposite party No. 2 by way of complaint against the petitioner and another person alleged that he carried transportation business and had been entrusted with a consignment by the accused and after completing the transportation he submitted a bill of Rs. 15,500. It was alleged that the accused had delivered consignment weighing about 11 M.T. as against the permissible load of 9 M. T. and for that violation of the rules, the complainant had to face a good deal of problems in transit and the consignment had to be unloaded and re-loaded at several check points and thereby complainant had to incur additional expenses not covered by the normal terms of the agreement, but it was expressly implied therein. It was further alleged that some other consignment was also brought by the complainant for delivery to the accused, but the bill for the transportation of the said consignment was not paid. It was alleged that the consignment beyond permissible limit was carried on the assurance of the accused (petitioner) that in case of any aventuality in transit, if there were some additional expenses necessary to be incurred, the same would be included in the final bill which the accused would accept and pay without any grudge and objection. It was alleged that the accused petitioner paid only Rs. 10,000 against the bill of Rs. 15,500 and has not paid the rest despite notice and hence the complaint was filed. A copy of the complaint petition is Annexure 1 of the petition. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Photo copy of the deposition of those witnessen are Annexure 2 series. The learned Magistrate considered the evidence made under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and on perusal of the evidence of complainant took cognizance against the petitioner and another accused for the offence punishable under Sections 406/409/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Photo copy of the deposition of those witnessen are Annexure 2 series. The learned Magistrate considered the evidence made under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and on perusal of the evidence of complainant took cognizance against the petitioner and another accused for the offence punishable under Sections 406/409/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said order has been challenged by the present application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no offence has been made out on the allegation made in the complaint petition and utmost it was a case of civil nature regarding the breach of contract. On the other hand the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has contended that the offence punishable under Sections 406/409/420 and 120-B of the Indian Panal Code are made, out on the allegations made in the complaint. Ho has further contended that the petitioner has full opportunity to make his submissions before the trial court at the stage of framing of charge and his contention that no charge is made out may be considered by the trial court at that stage. 4. A perusal of the complaint would show that complaint was filed for non-payment of Rs. 5,500 which was the balance amount of the bill of Rs. 13,500 regarding the transportation charges and it is only on account of non-payment of the said amount that a grievance was raised in the complaint petition for prosecution of the petitioner and another co-accused person. The court below has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under different section of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Section 406 relates to offence punishable for criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code), for mating out a case of criminal breach of trust, It is essential to show that the accused Is entrusted with property or with any dominion over the property and he dishonestly, misappropriates converts to his use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescriding the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which be has made tocuhing the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. It shows that untrustment or dominion over any property is the fundamental fact which must be there in order to show that the property was misappropriated. Non-payment of the outstanding bill cannot make (sic) out a case of criminal breach of trust as there was no entrustment of any porperty. 6. Seotion 409 of the Code was also not applicable as the same also relates to the criminal breach of trust. 7. Section 420 of the Code also requires the delivery of any property on account of cheating and inducement on the part of the accused. Nonpayment of the bill cannot be said to be a case where any property was delivered dishonestly and on inducement by the accused. The consignment which was entrusted to the complainant, was the property of the accused and it was transported by the complainant and the complainant raised the bill on account of transportation charges to be paid by the complainant in this transaction. The complainant had not delivered any property to the accused or any other person. It appoars to be the case of civil nature regarding breach of contract for payment of transportation charges, as agreed. As regards Section 120-B of the Code deposition of the witnesses or the evidence under Section 202, Cr. P. C. as well as the allegation made in the complaint did not make out a case of conspiracy. There appears to be no evidence led on behalf of the complainant to make out a case of conspiracy. 8. In the circumstance even if the entire allegation of the complainant is accepted, it does not make out any case for taking cognizance under Sections 406/409/420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has not applied his mind to see whether any offence had been made out on the allegations made by the complainant or it was a case of a civil wrong. Invoking jurisdiction of criminal court for a civil wrong amounts to abuse of process of court. It warrants interference by this Court under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that the petitioner has opportunity to show before the trial court that no charge is made out when the trial court takes up the matter for framing the charge. It warrants interference by this Court under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that the petitioner has opportunity to show before the trial court that no charge is made out when the trial court takes up the matter for framing the charge. This contention cannot be accepted when the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is bad and amounts to the abuse of the process of court. The petitioner has not to be driven to face the proceedings in the trial court up to the stage of charge and then to make his submissions that no charge is made out. It would be a trial initiated on complaint and evidence before charge will have to be led and it is only after the taking of the prosecution evidence before charge that the stage for framing of charge would come. If the complaint itself is bad and taking cognizance is not sustainable, the petitioner need not to be driven to face the trial up to the framing of charge. 10. In the circumstances the application is allowed, the impugned order dated 11-9-1995 and criminal proceeding initiated in Complaint Case No. 363 of 1995 are quashed.