JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order dated 3.5.1996 passed by the S.D.J.M., Balasore taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/406/34, IPC as well as the proceeding against the Petitioners in I.C.C. No. 138 of 1996. 2. Facts narrated in the petition tend to reveal that on the complaint filed by the present O.P., the S.D.J.M. by the impugned order took cognizance of offences under Sections 420/406/34, IPC against the Petitioners and issued process against them. The accused persons appeared before the S.D.J.M. and filed an application to recall the process issued against them and to drop the proceeding. The learned S.D.J.M. after hearing both the parties and on scrutiny and reading the initial statement, complaint petition and the statement of one Baburam Khanda recorded u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, found that there was no specific allegation against any of the accused persons as to what they had done individually in committing the offences alleged in the complaint petition, and basing upon the decision of the apex Court, in the case of K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1992) 5 OCR 66, recalled the process issued against all the accused persons and dropped the proceeding by order dated 16.11.1996. Thereafter, this Court in suo motu Criminal Revision No. 546 of 1997 called for the record of the complaint case and after hearing set aside the order dated 16.11.1996 passed by the S.D.J.M. recalling the process and dropping the proceeding on the ground that the offence alleged in K.M. Mathew's case was a non-cognizable and bailable one whereas the offences alleged against the accused persons in the present case were cognizable and non-bailable and, therefore the ratio of the decision in K.M. Mathew's case (supra) was not applicable to this case and accordingly directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint case as per law. 3. Now in this application the Petitioners have invoked the inherent power of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing the order taking cognizance against them on the ground that allegation made in the complaint petition as well as the initial statement and the evidence recorded u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure do not make out a case against the Petitioners. 4. 4. Law is well settled that the jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and Court should be at loath to pass any order to throttle a criminal proceeding at the initial stage. In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others the apex Court held that power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The apex Court indicated the following categories of cases by way of illustration where the High Court can quash proceedings: 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report 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. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is malaciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 5. In the case at hand, from bare perusal of the allegations made in the complaint petition and it appears that the accused-Petitioner No. 1 is a Company and accused-Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are its Directors and Executive Directors. The Company having its office at Ranihat, Cuttack, sold teak plantation share certificates by making several advertisements in daily Oriya newspapers and attracting the general public and disclosing in the advertisements that investment of Rs. 495/- would give profit of Rs. 60,000/- after 20 years per one teak tree. It was further disclosed that the Company had already planted three lakhs of teak trees at Puspangi near Athagarh, (sic) the district of Cuttack and such trees had been duly insured. According to the complainant, being lured by such advertisement he deposited Rs. 2,000/- for one teak tree and such deposit was made at Balasore. The Company did not issue any certificate within four months, as promised, for which the complainant issued a notice through his Advocate to the Company. Thereafter the certificate was issued to the complainant but the same did not disclose the date of issue and the date of maturity and the benefits assured by the Company earlier. The complainant suspecting the performance of the Company visited the village Puspangi and on enquiry from the Revenue Inspector, Athagarh, came to know that the Company had no land in that village and no teak plantation had been made by the Company. Therefore, he filed the complaint case and after recording the initial statement and making enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, the S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offences and issued process. For the sake of convenience, the entire initial statement of the complainant is reproduced herein below: I complain against 6 persons (names them). Therefore, he filed the complaint case and after recording the initial statement and making enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, the S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offences and issued process. For the sake of convenience, the entire initial statement of the complainant is reproduced herein below: I complain against 6 persons (names them). Occurrence took place on 2.12.94, 30.3.96 and on subsequent dates. The accused persons have formed a Company Trans Oceanic Agro Tech. Ltd. having head office at Ranihat, Cuttack. The Company made advertisement for plantation of Teak-wood trees and issued shares to publics. For investment of Rs. 495/- they assured profit of Rs. 60,000/- after 20 years per tree. They guaranteed 39 CFT of teak timbers. They also disclosed to have planted 3 lakhs of Teak trees at Puspangi at Cuttack Athagarh Road and they also advertised that such trees have been insured by them. They assured to plant two trees in 100 square feet area and the said land was to be registered in the name of the share holder. They also assured to issue a Teak bond certificate within 4 months of receiving money. I was impressed by such advertisement of the accused persons. I deposited Rs. 2,000/- for one tree as per their subsequent declaration. They did not issue certificate within 4 months. I served one advocate notice. So they sent the certificate only to me. Such certificate did not disclose the date issue, date maturity nor any of the assurances made earlier. (Illegible) registration certificate was not given to me. So I suspected the performance of the Co. and accused persons. On 30.3.96 I went to Puspangi and inquired from the Revenue Inspector and learnt that the Company has no land at village Puspangi nor any tree planted there. Hence I knew that the declaration made by accused persons are all false. To my knowledge lakhs of people have purchased shares from the Company and invested. I have not informed police or any other authority. They have cheated me. 6. The facts leading to recall of the process and filing of this application have already been detailed in the foregoing paragraphs. The cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 406/420/34, IPC. So far as Section 406 IPC is concerned, it relates to punishment for criminal breach of trust. They have cheated me. 6. The facts leading to recall of the process and filing of this application have already been detailed in the foregoing paragraphs. The cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 406/420/34, IPC. So far as Section 406 IPC is concerned, it relates to punishment for criminal breach of trust. Section 405 IPC which prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust, reads as under: 405. Criminal breach of trust.- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust." Explanation-1 xxx xxx xxx Explanation-2 xxx xxx xxx 7. So far as the offence u/s 405 of the IPC is concerned, to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust it is essential that the accused must have been entrusted with some property or with any dominion or power over it. Further there should be material that in respect of the property so entrusted, there was dishonest misappropriation or dishonest conversion or dishonest use or disposal in violation of a direction of law or legal contract by the accused himself or by someone else which he willingly suffered to do. As regards the offence u/s 420, IPC, I may refer to a decision of the apex Court in the case of Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal wherein it was observed that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered. Further to convict a person u/s 420, IPC, it has to be established that not only he has cheated someone but also by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who was cheated to deliver any property. In the case of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad 2000 (3) SCC 693 , the apex Court indicated: As mentioned above, Section 415 has two parts. In the case of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad 2000 (3) SCC 693 , the apex Court indicated: As mentioned above, Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must, 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently' induce the complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. That is to say, in the first part inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent, in the second part, the inducement should be intentional.... 8. In the present case, taking the facts narrated in the complaint petition and the statement recorded u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure into consideration, I do not find any ingredient to take cognizance u/s 420/406/34, IPC against the Petitioners. That too, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in the meantime the investors have already got back their money. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a fit case to quash the cognizance and the proceeding in I.C.C. No. 138 of 1996 pending before the S.D.J.M., Balasore against Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 for the offence under Sections 420/406/34, IPC. 9. For the reasons indicated above, I quash the impugned order dated 3.5.1996 passed by the S.D.J.M., Balasore taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/406/34, IPC as well as the proceeding against the accused-Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 in I.C.C. No. 138 of 1996. The Criminal Misc. Case is allowed accordingly. Final Result : Allowed