ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Choudhury learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. Though notice was served on respondent No. 2, the complainant and that the Registry received back the A/D Card after service of notice of the case, the said respondent did not enter appearance in the matter and as such this proceeding proceeded exparte against the said respondent. 3. The respondent No. 2 on 29.04.2014 as a complainant filed a criminal complainant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi being CR Case No. 409C/2014 against the petitioner alleging commission of offences under Sections 420/406 IPC by him and the learned CJM, Hailakandi perusing the said compliant forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge of Lala Police Station to register a case, enquire in to the matter and submit report. On receipt of the said complaint on 14.05.2015 from learned CJM, Hailakandi, it was registered as Lala Police Station Case No.124/2014 under Sections 420/406 IPC corresponding to GR No. 606/2014. 4. Being aggrieved, pertaining to said registration of Lala P.S. Case No. 124/2014, the petitioner have preferred this criminal petition for quashing and setting aside the said criminal proceeding against him stating that the allegation made by the complainant/respondent No. 2 in said complaint being CR Case No. 409C/2014, which now treated as FIR with regard to said Lala P.S. Case, do not prima facie constitute any offence triable by criminal court as it does not disclose any cognizable offence justifying the investigation by police and same was filed and lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 with malafide intention for wracking vengeances against the petitioner and to harass him due to his private and personal grudge. In this regard the petitioner placed before the court that the allegation against him is that he verbally engaged the complainant/ respondent No. 2 in a construction work, promising him that on completion of the work he would give him half of the profit and on that understanding, the complainant engaged the workers, arranged JCB, stone chips, sand etc. and spent Rs 3,94,611/- and that in that regard cash memos and the account was already handed over to him. and spent Rs 3,94,611/- and that in that regard cash memos and the account was already handed over to him. It is also placed that in said complainant, further allegation against the petitioner is that he promised him to provide winger vehicle under self help group scheme and on said hope, the said complainant/respondent No. 2 paid Rs 1,00,000/- as an advance and all total paid Rs.3,00,000/-per head on 11.02.2000 to him and according to the said complainant he had already spent Rs 3,94,611/- and that the petitioner is required to pay him an amount of Rs. 5,72,305/-, out of which the petitioner paid him Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of cheque and the remaining amount Rs. 4,22,305/- is yet to be paid. 5. The petitioner submits before the Court that the allegation made by complainant/ respondent No. 2 are vague, frivolous, fabricated and not based on facts and the said complaint has been filed with malafide intention, since no prudent person would believe that someone would spent such a huge amount on verbal assurance and that too, the petitioner never appointed the said respondent No. 2/ complainant as his agent or assistant for any purpose of work. 6. The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that he on 28.01.2014 filed a complaint under Section 107 Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate at Hailakandi for keeping peace and security against the witnesses of the complainant/respondent No. 2 as they made illegal demand of money from him on behalf of the complainant/respondent No. 2, which was registered as Case No. 2914/2014 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate, Hailakandi wherein the learned Magistrate being satisfied drawn up the proceeding under the said Section of Cr.P.C. against the witnesses of the respondent No. 2 and issued show cause notice to them as to why they shall not be asked to execute bond of Rs.1,000/- each for keeping peace and to maintain good behavior with the petitioner. The petitioner also placed that said fact has also been reflected in the said complaint/FIR of the respondent No. 2. 7. It is seen that at the respondent 2 as complainant preferred the complaint being CR Case No. 409C/2014 only on 29.04.2014, which was subsequently registered as Lala P.S. Case No. 124/2014 under Sections 420/406 IPC corresponding to GR No. 606/2014. 7. It is seen that at the respondent 2 as complainant preferred the complaint being CR Case No. 409C/2014 only on 29.04.2014, which was subsequently registered as Lala P.S. Case No. 124/2014 under Sections 420/406 IPC corresponding to GR No. 606/2014. The prayer of the complainant/respondent 2 in his said complaint dated 29.04.2014 was for taking necessary action to recover the amount from the petitioner with the help of police personnel of Lala Police Station, which is unpaid by the petitioner to his the witness Nos. 1 and 2, who are very simple person. 8. The essential ingredients of Section 406 IPC is that there should be (i) entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property, (ii) the person so entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted such entrusted property or the property over which he/she has any dominion (a) to his own use or (b) dishonestly used or dispose of that property or willfully suffering any other person in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharged or (ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trusts. 9. To bring home the offence under Section 406 IPC, the ingredients of entrustment with property, having domain over it, and the same having been misappropriated or converted to his own use by the accused person are required to be proved and that where the prosecution for the offence under Section 406 IPC cannot bring the evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt such accused needs to be acquitted. 10. On the other hand the essential ingredients Section 420 IPC are that (i) there must be deception, i.e. the accused must have deceived someone, (ii) that by the said deception, the accused must have induced a person – (a) to deliver any property; or (b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property and (iii) that the accused did so dishonestly. 11. For a person to be convicted under Section 420 IPC, it has to be established not only that he has cheated someone but also that by doing so, the accused has dishonestly induced the person who was cheated to delivery any property. 12. 11. For a person to be convicted under Section 420 IPC, it has to be established not only that he has cheated someone but also that by doing so, the accused has dishonestly induced the person who was cheated to delivery any property. 12. In the present case, from the reading of said complaint/FIR dated 29.05.2014 of the of the complainant/informant/Respondent No. 2 it can be seen that it does not contain any such ingredients either of Section 406 or 420 IPC, rather it is the informant/respondent No. 2 wants his share of profit allegedly from the petitioner/accused. In said Complaint/FIR dated 29.05.2014, the complainant, except the verbal agreement, did not state anything regarding any entrustment of property by him on the petitioner over which he had the domain or that the petitioner deceived or cheated him or someone by dishonest inducement to make delivery any property, thereby the petitioner misappropriated or converted the same to his own use. For any realization of amount as per an agreement between him and the petitioner, the complainant/informant/respondent No. 2 is required to establish the same against the petitioner by leading evidence before a Civil Court and not by recourse to any criminal proceeding that too in the absence any such material or ingredients of penal section. 13. For the reasons above the Court is of the view if the proceeding of said Lala P.S. Case No. 124/2014 under Sections 420/406 IPC corresponding to GR No. 606/2014 is allowed to proceed against the petitioner, it would be an abuse of process of the court and as such, for the ends of justice the proceeding of said Lala P.S. Case No. 124/2014 corresponding to GR No. 606/2014 against the petitioner herein is hereby set aside and quashed. Consequently the criminal complaint lodged by the complainant/informant/respondent No.2 on 29.04.2014 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi being CR Case No. 409C/2014 against the petitioner is also set aside and quashed. 14. Accordingly this criminal petition stands allowed.