Order Heard. The Present application has been riled for quashing the order dated 21.1.97 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Bela P. S. Case no. 20/1994 taking cognizance under sections 420, 406 & 120B IPC The Bank opposite party no. 2 lodged a F.I.R. alleging that M/s S. P. Steel Pvt. Ltd. has its registered office at Mohlla Nayee Bazar, Muzaffarpur Town and factory at Industrial Estate Bela, Muzaffarpur. Sudhir Kr. Agrawal is its Managing Director and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal is one of its Directors. The Company is engaged in manufacturing in got would. The Bank had provided it Cash credit (Mundi Type) of Rs. 8.00/- lakh and Cash Credit Limit (Bills) of Rs. 2.00 lakh on hypothecation or its stocks and raw materials, Aforesaid Sudhir Kr Agrawal with the help or his brother started the major portion or the plant, machinery, finished and unfinished products by breaking the back portion or the factory without consent over which the Bank has its charge. Thus, they have committed the aforesaid offence. There is no dispute that the Bank has filed Mortgage Suit no. 114/96 before the Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur and that is also pending against the accused persons, From perusal or the same it appears that, the accused petitioners have availed Cash Credit (Mundi Type) facility and they did not avail the Cash Credit (Bills) Account despite its sanction and opening. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the allegation stands no case against the petitioners is made out for the simple reason that only allegation is that the petitioners have removed the hypothecated goods with regard to which the Cash Credit Facility was given to the petitioners. In the case of hypothecation ownership was never transferred to the Bank and as such it cannot be said that the Bank had entrusted the property with regard to which the alleged offence has been committed. Inspite of valid service of notice no body appears on behalf of the Bank. "In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is well founded. The allegation as made out against the petitioners is that they have availed the Cash Credit Facility on hypothecation of certain goods and they have removed all the goods over which the Bank has charge, The Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation. The allegation as made out against the petitioners is that they have availed the Cash Credit Facility on hypothecation of certain goods and they have removed all the goods over which the Bank has charge, The Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation. S.P.E, SIU (X). New Delhi Vs. Duncons Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta, AIR 1996 SC 2452 in paragraph-27 has held that in case of hypothecation the ownership of the goods remained in the person, who has hypothecated such goods and as such the hypothecated goods cannot be said to be the property of a person other than the person who has hypothecated the goods. In that view of the matter no offence of criminal breach of trust' is made out against a person who has hypothecated the goods. The law laid down in the aforesaid case fully applies on the facts of this case as according to the allegation accused person ale alleged to have removed the hypothecated goods over which the Back has charge. Thus, no offence of criminal breach of trust is made out. So far offence of cheating is concerned, the same is also not made out as the petitioners cannot be said to have deceived the Bank any fraudulent or dishonest inducement. As such there is a case where the prosecution of the petitioners should be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the prosecution of the petitioners is quashed.