Judgment : 1. A. Arulmozhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 406 I.P.C. pending in C.C. No. 186 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner herein has been arrayed as A4 and there are four accused in this case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is working as a clerk of the first accused company, viz., Patriot Automation private limited, calcutta. It is subbmitted by the learned counsel that the allegation, as per the complaint given by the defacto complainant, is that during the period between 8.3.2002 to 8.5.2002, A-1, patriot Authomation private limited represented by the Managing Director, A-2 being the Senior vice president A-3, being the Branch sales Manager, Tamil Nadu and A-4 being the manager of the Company were entrusted with the total sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-by the defacto complainant for the purpose of distributorship for two telephonic products with the first accused company and A-2 to A-4 committed the criminal breach of trust in respect of the said sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- 3. The learned counsel submits that as far as the petitioner is concerned she is not the Manager and she is only a Clerk working in the first accused company and she has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of the company. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even as per the complaint, there are specific allegations levelled only against A-2 and A-3 as they have said to have made certain representation to the defacto complainant and induced the defacto complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-initially. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even as per the complaint, there are specific allegations levelled only against A-2 and A-3 as they have said to have made certain representation to the defacto complainant and induced the defacto complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-initially. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a agreement entered into between the first accused and the defacto complainant company dated 6.4.2002 in respect of the above said alleged business transaction and the agreement also signed by the defacto complainant as well as the first accused company and the second accused signed behalf of the first accused company and the petitioner was not at all in the picture and A-4 also not the party to the agreement. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire allegations contained in the complaint do not constitute the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither in the complaint nor on the statement recorded from the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. discloses any allegation to the effect that there was a entrustment on the part of the petitioner herein who has been arrayed as A-4 in this case. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust not at all arises in respect of the petitioner herein. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a similarly placed accused, viz., A-3 has moved before this Court for a similar relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against A-3 and this Court allowed the petition for quashing filed by A-3 in Crl.O.P.No.27090 of 2003 by the order dated 25.8.2003. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a similarly placed accused, viz., A-3 has moved before this Court for a similar relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against A-3 and this Court allowed the petition for quashing filed by A-3 in Crl.O.P.No.27090 of 2003 by the order dated 25.8.2003. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has held while quashing the above said petition that entire allegations contained in this case not at all constitute an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. and this Court also held that at the worst the allegations contained in the complaint and other materials available on record may not constitute the criminal breach of trust between the parties viz., the defacto complainant and the first accused company and criminal breach of trust neither on the part of the petitioner or on the part of the other accused. 5. The learned Additional Public prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Additional public prosecutor that in the complaint, it is stated that even A-2 and A-4 also made certain rpresentations and only thereafter, the agreement was entered between the defacto complainant and the first accused on 6.4.2002. 6. N.Duraisamy, learned counsel for the defacto complainant also contended that there are enough materials available on record to implicated the petitioner herein. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner herein and the other accused 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record including the complaint and other statements recorded from the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 8. A perusal of the records clearly shows that there is absolutely no allegations whatsoever in respect of the first and foremost ingredients of the offence under Section 406 I.P.C., viz., entrustment of property to the petitioner herein. It is further seen from the materials available on record that it is mentioned in the complaint the A-2 and A-4 made certain representations, but the undisputed fact remains as per the materials available on record that the entire allegations based on the agreement said to have been entered into between the defacto complainant and the first accused on 6.4.2002. It is further seen from the materials available on record that it is mentioned in the complaint the A-2 and A-4 made certain representations, but the undisputed fact remains as per the materials available on record that the entire allegations based on the agreement said to have been entered into between the defacto complainant and the first accused on 6.4.2002. The grievance of the defacto complainant also clearly shows that there were certain process of undertaking given by the first accused in respect of the agreement entered into between the parties dated 6.4.2002. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court quashed the proceedings initiated against the third accused on Crl.O.P. No. 27090 of 2003 by the order dated 25.8.2003 and in that order, this court has categorically held that the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed as there is no question of any criminal liability on the part of the accused persons in this case This Court also proceeded to hold that the entire materials available on record may amount to some breach of contract but that itself would not give rise to any criminal offence and this court followed principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Palanikar v. State of Orissa. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that allowing the proceedings to continue as far as the petitioner is concerned would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. 9. Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing as legal aid counsel for the defacto complainant/second respondent, argued the case effectively. N. Duraisamy, is entitled to get remuneration from the Madras High Court Legal Aid Centre, Chennai. This Court also place on record the commendable services rendered by N.Duraisamy.