JUDGMENT R.K. Mishra, J.- The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 22.3.2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 2371 of 2002/Trial No. 1521 of 2002, by which the Court of Sri S.K. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaishali, found prima facie case under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code to proceed against the petitioners. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Ganga Paswan, Opposite party No.2, gave a written application to the Officer Incharge, Harijan Thana, Hajipur, on the basis of which Hajipur S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No. 8 of 2002 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioners. The opposite party No.2 alleged that he was working as labour at the residence of the petitioners for the last ten years but the petitioners did not pay his wages for the last four years. Whenever Jitendra Prasad Shukla (petitioner No.1) used to come to his village, he assured to make payment of wages. On 14.11.2002, he went to the residence of the petitioners at Hajipur and demanded his wages but on the order of Jitendra Babu (petitioner No.1), other accused, who happens to be his brother and sons, assaulted him by fists and slaps and abused also. 3. After investigation, the police submitted the final form finding the case false but the opposite party No.2 filed Protest Petition. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the final form on 21.9.2002 and transferred the protest-cum-complaint petition bearing Complaint Case No. 2371 of 2001, corresponding to Trial No. 1521 of 2002 to the Court of Sri S.K Jha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaishali. After enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 22.3.2002 found prima facie case under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code to proceed against all the five accused-petitioners. Against the said order, petitioners preferred the present application for quashing. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the order, inter alia, on the ground that the order is not speaking as no reason has been assigned for finding prima facie case. No offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Against the said order, petitioners preferred the present application for quashing. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the order, inter alia, on the ground that the order is not speaking as no reason has been assigned for finding prima facie case. No offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is further submitted that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 med the compromise petition, thus, the continuation of proceeding after filing of the compromise petition is misuse of the process of the Court. It is also submitted that the complainant never worked as labour at the house of the petitioners, which would appear from the facts asserted by the opposite party No.2 in C.W.J.C. No. 27910 of 1995, as contained in Annexure-'14' to the second supplementary affidavit, that he was working in Forest Department since 1991. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has admitted the facts of compromise of the complaint case. 6. Ort perusal of the complaint petition as well as the order impugned, it appears that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 alleged that on 14.1.2002 he went to the house of the petitioner No. 1 to demand his wages and on such demand the petitioners abused him by naming his caste and also assaulted him with fists and slaps. The learned Judicial Magistrate, as it appears from the order impugned, has stated that the complainant examined himself and three witnesses but the learned Judicial Magistrate did not discuss the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses, arriving at a conclusion of finding prima facie case under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, on the face of the order impugned, the order is bad. For finding prima facie case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be entrustment of property or with any dominion over property to a person, who dishonestly misappropriates or converts the same to his own use. But ingredient for making out an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is absent as there was no entrustment of property to the accused petitioners. Non-payment of wages does not constitute the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. But ingredient for making out an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is absent as there was no entrustment of property to the accused petitioners. Non-payment of wages does not constitute the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the order finding prima facie case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is bad and illegal on this account also. Since the complainant-opposite party No.2 himself has admitted the facts of compromise and the other offences are compoundable, therefore, the continuation of the proceeding against the petitioners will be futile exercise. 7. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.3.2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 2371 of 2002/Trial No. 1521 of 2002 by the Court of Sri S.K. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaishali, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. Application allowed.