JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Sumita Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent despite notice. 2. By this criminal Revision, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the criminal proceeding initiated through the complaint case No. 400C/96 before the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Barpeta as well as the order dated 22.2.96 by which the cognizance of offence under Sections 406/506 IPC has been taken against the accused/petitioner. 3. The impugned criminal proceeding has been launched on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent wherein it was narrated that though the vehicle (Bus) bearing registration AS-15-1155 was registered in the name of his mother, due to sickness of his mother, the complainant/respondent along with his mother entered into an agreement of sale of the said vehicle with the petitioner and as per the said agreement, an amount of Rs. 70,000/- was paid to the complainants mother by the petitioner. But after that, the petitioner failed to repay the outstanding amount of the vehicle which costed Rs. 3,51,000/-. It was also mentioned in the complaint itself that since the vehicle was purchased on being financed by Telco Company, the entire price money of the vehicle was to be paid by the complainant/respondent. Despite repeated request, the accused petitioner did not pay any heed to it and in the alternative he threatened the respondent with dire consequences for which the complainant respondent was compelled to lodge the said complaint wherein he also made a prayer for issuance of search warrant by the competent Court. 5. Mrs. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the complaint ex-facie does not reveal any ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 406, IPC read with Section 506, IPC. According to her, since the complainant respondent himself admitted that there was a sale agreement between the parties, the question of entrustment does not arise inasmuch as by virtue of sale, the property itself was transferred out in favour of the petitioner. Her contention is that in case of entrustment, some responsibility has been fixed upon the person to do certain things. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the definition of entrustment to be found in Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary as well as Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition. Her contention is that in case of entrustment, some responsibility has been fixed upon the person to do certain things. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the definition of entrustment to be found in Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary as well as Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition. In Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, entrustment is defined as entrust means to make somebody responsible for doing something. In Blacks Law Dictionary, entrust is defined as to give a person the responsibility for something usually after establishing the confidential relationship. Keeping such meaning of the word entrustment in view, it is submitted by Mrs. Choudhury that in the instant case there was no such entrustment to rope the accused person in Section 406 IPC. It is also argued that so far section 506, IPC is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the said section had been apparently missing in the complaint itself wherein it was merely stated that the petitioner threatened to kill him which appeared to be absolutely vague in nature and baseless. Accordingly, it is submitted that no prima facie case is made out in the complaint to proceed with the trial under those sections against the petitioner. To substantiate her submission, she has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court. 1. R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab 2. Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and ors. 3. State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Bhajanlal and ors. 4. Rupan Deol Bajan and another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another All those citations go to show that quashment of a complaint/FIR is permissible where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 6. In Madhavraos case(supra) in paragraph-7, the Apex Court while dealing with a similar and identical case for quashment a criminal proceeding U/S 406/407, IPC, observed as follows- 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 allegations 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 utilized 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 served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. 7. I have meticulously scanned the allegations made in the complaint including the materials available on record. It is seen that the allegations made out in the impugned complaint failed to make out a case of an offence to be tried under sections 406/506, IPC. The entire case pertains to non-payment of balance amount of sale proceed in terms of agreement of sale of the vehicle and as such the same is of civil nature. It also appears from the record that immediately after issuance of search warrant by the trial Court, the vehicle in question was seized by the police and the same was handed over to the complainant/respondent. That being the position, I am constrained to accept the submissions advanced by Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Having regard to the above precedents and considering the factual situation in its entirety, it is held that it is a fit case wherein the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised for quashing the impugned criminal proceeding and accordingly the impugned proceeding is hereby quashed. Interim order made earlier stands absolute. 9. In the result, this Revision succeeds and stands allowed.