Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by Kedar Prasad Kedar Nath Prasad, an advocate, and Jitendra Prasad Singh for quashing order dated 25.9.1996 recorded by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran in T.R. No. 1409 of 1997, arising out of Complaint Case No. 1280 of 1995 summoning the accused to face trial as also for quashing order dated 15.1.1997 by which non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued. Complainant was Parmeshwar Tiwary who is opposite party No. 2 in this application. 2. In this case notices were issued upon opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and as per office report notices were served upon them, but they did not appear through counsel when the case was called out. 3. The facts in brief are that Parmeshwar Tiwary filed complaint against petitioner Jitendra Prasad Singh and three others (not against petitioner No. 1) stating therein that the complainant was plaintiff along with petitioner No. 2 Jitendra Prasad Singh in Title Suit No. 204 of 1983, pending in the Court of Munsif first Court at Saran for which purpose petitioner No. 1 was engaged as lawyer to whom the complainant had entrusted certified copies of a number of documents as per list annexed to the complaint petition directing him not to hand over the same to any other persons. 4. Further allegation in the complaint petition, which is Annexure-1, is that petitioner No. 2, the co-plaintiff had asked the plaintiff to take with him his father Sawalia Singh who had vast knowledge about litigations and on that the complainant allowed Sawalia Singh to do pairvi in the case. Further allegation is that all the accused including defendants in the title suit who are opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 in this application had conjointly conspired as result of which all the documents (certified copies as above) Sawalia Singh took out from petitioner No. 1 and handed over that to defendant Tribhuwan Upadhyay (opposite party No. 3). The claim was that the cost of those documents was Rs. 2000/-, hence conjointly the accused had committed breach of trust. 5. The claim was that the cost of those documents was Rs. 2000/-, hence conjointly the accused had committed breach of trust. 5. It will appear that after enquiry in which three witnesses were examined as per lower Court record, the learned lower Court held that there was no evidence that those documents were given by Sawalia Singh to named accused Tribhuwan Upadhyay and Dindyal Upadhyay, hence the learned lower Court did not summon them but held that so far the petitioners and Sawalia Singh were concerned, prima facie case against them under Section 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was made out, hence ordered for issuance of summonses against them. It may be noted here that though petitioner No. 1 was not named accused in this case but on 25.9.1996 (Annexure-2) the complainant filed an application in the lower Court that from the evidence on record a case prima facie was made out against petitioner No. 1 also, hence he should also be summoned. On basis of that this petitioner was also ordered to be summoned to face trial by the impugned order dated 25.9.1996. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no offence was made out either in the complaint petition or in the statements of witnesses examined in course of enquiry and on this main ground he prayed for allowing this prayer. 7. Learned counsel submitted that from averments of the complaint petition it was manifest that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as an advocate on behalf of the complainant in the aforesaid title suit, who was entrusted with the certified copies of the documents and from the complaint petition as well from the statement of witnesses it would be clear that Sawalia Singh was working as pairvikar of the complainant which has also been specifically stated by witness No. 1, Kamla Singh. In his evidence in course of enquiry. Learned counsel further submitted that from the complaint petition and from the evidence on record it would appear that the aforesaid Sawalia Singh had asked petitioner No. 1 to give him those documents which he had given to him. In his evidence in course of enquiry. Learned counsel further submitted that from the complaint petition and from the evidence on record it would appear that the aforesaid Sawalia Singh had asked petitioner No. 1 to give him those documents which he had given to him. Argument is that even if the allegation is true, the advocate had handed over the documents to a person who admittedly was working on behalf of the complainant as his pairvikar, hence, he cannot be said either to have cheated the complainant or to have committed any breach of trust punishable under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it was submitted that admittedly Jitendra Prasad Singh was co-plaintiff with the complainant in the aforesaid title suit which, according to the learned counsel, related to same land, part of which was purchased from same vendor by those two, hence they had common cause in the suit. It is submitted that only allegation against Jitendra Prasad Singh is that he recommended Sawalia Singh, his father, for doing pairvi in the case on behalf of the plaintiff, which evidence is supported by the complainant in the Court, too. Argument is that if thereafter Sawalia Singh had taken the documents in that capacity from the lawyer and even if he had given those to the defendant, no offence can be said to have been committed by him, also submitting that in so far as conspiracy angle is concerned, there was no material on record to support that further arguing that obviously petitioner No. 2 as a plaintiff in the title suit could not have conspired against his own interest for giving certified copies of those public documents, which otherwise could have been easily procured by anyone, to a defendant who was his adversary in the title suit. 9. In reply, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 (complainant) has submitted that as per complaint petition itself petitioner No. 1 was under direction of the complainant not to hand over the documents to any one, still he did that and conspiracy of petitioner No. 2 was evident because the person who had taken the documents and is said to have given those documents to the defendant of the case was his father who was doing pairvi in the case on the recommendation of petitioner No. 2. Learned counsel also submitted that at this stage it is not for this Court while considering an application of this nature under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to evaluate the evidence and to find out as to whether or not the evidence was sufficient for conviction. It was sufficient, as argued, if materials have been brought on the record indicating implication of the accused when the offence as claimed and it is for the trial Court to examine the evidence and to decide whether the charges have been proved against accused or not. 10. This postulation of law has been upheld in many decisions that at this stage the Court while considering an application of such nature should not delve into entire evidence to find out as to whether or not on such evidence accused could be convicted. It is, but also Settled law that this Court can interfere with the order of the congnizance in a police case or in an order of summoning the accused in a complaint case under certain circumstances, including that no case prima facie is made out against an accused who has been so summoned by the averments in the complaint petition and in the evidence of witness adduced in course of enquiry. 11. In that context learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in so far as petitioner No. 1 was concerned, on basis of the averments in the complaint petition and on basis of evidence adduced in course of enquiry no case prima facie was made out. Learned counsel also submitted that in so far petitioner No. 1 was concerned, there was allegation of conspiracy against him. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion it has to be seen as to whether any offence is made out, even prima facie, against the petitioners either from the allegations made in the complaint petition or in the statement of the witnesses. The material on record in this regard is that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a lawyer to defend complainant in the title suit who had entrusted some documents to the lawyer which were given by him to Sawalia Singh who was doing pairvi on behalf of the complainant, on his asking. The material on record in this regard is that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a lawyer to defend complainant in the title suit who had entrusted some documents to the lawyer which were given by him to Sawalia Singh who was doing pairvi on behalf of the complainant, on his asking. It is noteworthy that in the impugned order the learned lower Court has held that from the evidence it appeared that those documents which were given by the complainant to petitioner No. 1, were handed over by him to Sawalia Singh, but there was no material on record to show that Sawalia Singh had given those documents to Tribhuwan Upadhyaya or Dindyal Upadhayay. For this reason those two accused were not summoned by the learned lower Court. Therefore, from the findings of the learned lower Court it will appear that the allegation that the documents were taken by Sawalia Singh was proved from the material on record, but not beyond that. 13. There is much substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no material on the record to satisfy the ingredients of Section 406 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. In this regard it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that so far offence of cheating is concerned, this is made out against such a person who cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or makes alteration or destroys the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. It is submitted that no such offence is made out against either of the petitioners. 14. In so far as the offence of criminal breach of trust is concerned it was submitted that to make out the offence it is to be shown that the person entrusted with property or with any dominion over the property dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharged, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. Learned counsel submits that the ingredients at this offence are also lacking in so far as these two petitioners are concerned, since the property in question, as per allegation, was handed over to a person who was acting on behalf of the complainant, more so when the finding of the learned lower Court was that it was not prima facie shown that Sawalia Singh had handed over the property to the defendant. 15. It may also be noted here that Sawalia Singh also has been summoned to face the trial but he is not a petitioner before this Court. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion I find force in submissions of the learned counsel that no criminal offence has been made out against the petitioners under the averments made in the complaint petition or in the evidence of witnesses examined in course of enquiry. 17. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order 25.9.1996 as well criminal proceeding in the aforesaid complaint case, in so far these two petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that no observation or finding in this order shall be taken into consideration by the learned trial Court in so far as trial of Sawalia Singh is concerned.