DEBIPRASAD SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is for quashing of a proceeding being C. R Case No. 97 of 1996 arising out of I complaint under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant opposite party filed a petition of complaint on 17-10-1996 alleging commission of an offence under Sections 406/ 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In petition of complaint it is stated that the complainant is the Secretary of Bangavani Institution and the accused is known to the complainant and is an connected with the Institution. It is also stated that the complainant had a good relation with the accused and taking advantage of such good relation he earned the confidence of the complainant and on 1-7-1994 he took from the complainant some documents with promise to return those documents. It was alleged that these documents are valuable documents relating to the Institution and spite of repeated demands made by the complainant the accused did not return those documents. It was alleged that this way the accused/petitioner committed an offence of cheating and also criminal breach of trust. ( 2 ) THE learned Advocate forth petitioner submits that on receipt of the aforesaid petition of complaint, which does not make out any case at all under Section 406 of 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate mechanically took cognizance of the offence - and found that there was a primafacie case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process accordingly. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate for the complainant/opposite party submits that a primafacie case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out in the petition of complaint against the accused/petitioner and at this initial stage the proceeding should not be quashed. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the father of the present petitioner Late Gobindalal Goswami was the founder of the Institution under the name and style Bangavani Institution in 1929. Under the scheme of the Trust Late Gobindalal Goswami was elected and appointed Sarbadhyaksha and Rector and Secretary of the Society and Trust. Petitioners father died in the year 1968 and after his death the present petitioner was appointed and elected a member of the Society and a Trustee of the Trust and was also appointed Joint secretary of the said Institution. Petitioners father died in the year 1968 and after his death the present petitioner was appointed and elected a member of the Society and a Trustee of the Trust and was also appointed Joint secretary of the said Institution. Complainant Uttara Chowdhury was also appointed Trustee and Superintendent Secretary of the Society. Thereafter some difference of opinion and dispute cropped up over enlistment of the members of the Society. It appears that the complainant Uttara Chowdhury on behalf of the Society and of the Board of Trustees executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner Dibyendu Goswami, who was also the Secretary of the Board of Trustees and Society, delegating the power of management of properties of the Trust and to represent the Society in legal affairs. ( 5 ) IT is submitted by the petitioners learned Advocate that since 1995 the complainant/opposite party herself indulged in some anti-trust activities and colluded with some designing persons to deprive the Society and the Trust. She also started cutting down valuable trees planted by the petitioners late father Gobindalal Goswami without any Authority of the Board of Trustees. When the petitioner, confronted the complainant with such complaint, she became furious and lodged the false complaint with some false allegations against the petitioner. ( 6 ) I have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and also initial deposition of the witness, copies of which have been annexed to the revisional application. In my opinion the petition of complaint does not make out any offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. To constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust there must be dishonest misappropriation of the property by the person with whom confidence is placed as to the management and custody of the property in respect of which the breach of trust is charged. There must be entrustment; there must be misappropriation or conversion of the property to ones own use; and thirdly the misappropriation of conversion must be with a dishonest intention. Mere retention of some property or documents entrusted to person without any misappropriation does not constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust. Temporary retention of some property or document would not by itself amount to criminal breach of trust. Mere retention of some property or documents entrusted to person without any misappropriation does not constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust. Temporary retention of some property or document would not by itself amount to criminal breach of trust. In the instant case the only allegation made in the petition of complaint is that the petitioner took some documents from the complainant with a promise to return the same and thereafter on repeated demand made by the complainant he did not return the same. In my view such allegation made in the petition of complaint does not make out any offence of criminal breach of trust. There is absolutely no allegation in the petition of complaint or in the initial deposition of the witness that the accused/petitioner has misappropriated the said documents or properties or converted the same to his own use. Similarly the charge of cheating against the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be legally maintainable as it does not disclose any element of cheating, namely deception fraud, dishonest Inducement and causing wrongful loss to the Trust and Society and wrongful gain to the accused petitioner. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are deceit i. e. dishonest or fradulent representation by the accused and secondly inducing the person so deceived, to part with some property such essential ingredients of cheating are totally absent in the petition of complaint and in the initial deposition of the witness. ( 7 ) I am of the opinion that necessary ingredients of any of the offences have not been made out. In my opinion even if the allegations made in the petition of complaint and the initial deposition of the complainant and her witness are taken on their face value the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been made out. In the result, the revisional application is allowed and the criminal proceeding being Case No. Cr 87 of, 1996 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nabadwip District Nadia stands quashed. Petition allowed.