JUDGMENT : JAVED IQBAL WANI, J. 1. The petitioners in the instant petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seek quashment of Criminal Complaint titled Mst. Sheenum Qayoom v. Aabid Rasheed & Ors. (for short 'the impugned complaint') proceedings initiated thereon pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar (for short 'the Magistrate') along with order dated 22.07.2022 (for short the 'impugned order'). 2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged in the petition in hand, a brief background emerging therefrom reveals that one Aabid Rashid Qureshi, (an adopted son of petitioner herein) came to be married to respondent herein in the month of June, 2014 which marriage to the ill luck remained turbulent and resulted into its termination upon pronouncement of 'Talak' by the said Aabid Rashid Qureshi on 15.12.2021. The said Aabid Rashid Qureshi and respondent herein after their marriage are stated to have been putting up separately from the petitioners since 08.03.2021 and the petitioners claim to have been residing in their single story residential house being owned and possessed by them situated at Sector-B, Jeelan-abad Colony, Peerbagh, Hyderpora, Srinagar living post retirement life being doctors and suffering from multiple ailments. 3. The respondent herein is stated to have filed an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') on 26.02.2022 against her above named ex-husband Aabid Rashid Qureshi and the petitioners herein alleging therein commission of domestic violence upon her, before the Court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar. 4. The impugned Criminal Complaint also simultaneously is stated to have been filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners herein including her ex-husband for commission of offences under sections 403, 406, 420 and 506 IPC before the Magistrate wherein the Magistrate is stated to have initially deferred issuance of process and directed holding of an enquiry by SHO Police Station Humhama and in response whereof, the Police Station concerned is stated to have submitted a report and on being not satisfied with the said report, the Magistrate is stated to have sought yet another report from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar in the matter and upon receipt of the report therefrom on 18.04.2022, the Magistrate is stated to have heard the arguments on 04.05.2022 in the case and posted the same for orders on 25.05.2022. The Magistrate is further stated to have directed D.O. Humhama to search the residential house of the petitioners after observing that the petitioners herein did not allow the complainant respondent herein to enter her room in the said house and to take back her belongings. On 11.06.2022, the matter is stated to have been posted by the Magistrate for arguments of the complainant and fixed on 05.07.2022, on which date, the Magistrate is stated to have passed the impugned order. 5. The instant petition is being maintained by the petitioners on the grounds urged in the petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The counsel for the petitioners while making his submissions in line with the contentions raised and grounds urged in the petition would seek quashment of the impugned complaint, proceedings initiated thereon including the impugned order dated 22.07.2022, whereas on the contrary, the counsel for the respondent while opposing the contentions raised and grounds urged by the counsel for the petitioners would pray for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the impugned complaint, proceedings initiated thereon including the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 cannot in law, be quashed being at an initial stage. 7. Before adverting to the rival submissions made by appearing counsel for the parties, it would be relevant and germane herein to refer to the ambit and scope of inherent power enshrined under section 482 Cr.P.C. which has been laid down and reiterated in a longline of decision by the Apex Court and recently in case titled as Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2021 SCC Online DV 315]. The saving of the inherent power is designed to achieve a solitary public purpose, which is, that, the Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice as the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature. 8. 8. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and reverting back to the case in hand, in the impugned complaint, the complainant-respondent herein alleged the commission of offences under sections 403, 406, 420 and 506 IPC by the accused persons (petitioners herein besides her ex-husband above named Aabid Rashid Qureshi) and the Magistrate upon undertaking proceedings therein in the said complaint in terms of impugned order dated 22.07.2022, took cognizance of offences under sections 403 and 406 IPC and consequently, summoned the accused persons-petitioners herein. 9. Before proceeding further in the matter, a reference hereunder to Sections 403 and 406 IPC becomes imperative, which respectively read as under: Section 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property - “Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both.” Section 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust - “Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” It emanates from the above that the essential ingredients for commission of an offence under section 403 IPC are (i) dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property of a person to his own use and (ii) such property must have been immovable in nature and character. Therefore, there are two things necessary before an offence under section 403 IPC can be established, firstly, that the property must be misappropriated or converted to the use of the accused and, secondly that he must misappropriate or convert it dishonestly. Insofar as Section 406 IPC supra, is concerned, the same provides for punishment for criminal breach of trust. The offence of criminal breach of trust necessarily involves the fact of (i) entrustment of the property and (ii) a dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the property by an agent to his own use or (iii) dishonest use or disposal of the property in violation of the mandate of law prescribed a mode in which the entrustment is to be discharged or (iv) dishonest use or disposal of the property in violation of the terms or any legal contract either expressed or employed regarding the discharge of the entrustment or willfully allowing some other person to do so. Therefore for attracting the provisions of Section 406, two essential facts need to be present and proved, (a) the factum of entrustment and (b) the factum of misappropriation of the entrusted property. Thus, misappropriation simplicitor without dishonest intention would not attract the provisions of criminal breach of trust. 10. A closer and deeper examination of the impugned complaint would reveal that the complainant-respondent herein alleged therein that at the time of entering into marriage with Accused No. 1, namely, Dr. Aabid Rashid Qureshi, the complainant respondent herein brought along with her utility items as per the customs including gold ornaments, cash so on and so forth, as demanded by the accused persons including the petitioners herein and allegedly entrusted the said valuable articles to the accused persons under a bona fide belief that the accused persons would secure, preserve and protect the same and that when the complainant-respondent herein by playing fraud was forcibly evicted from her matrimonial home by her husband accused-1 and sent to her parental home, the complainant-respondent herein left all the said valuable articles in the custody of the accused persons and that the said articles were misappropriated by the accused persons including the petitioners herein while cheating and committing breach of trust. The complainant in the complaint further alleged that the accused persons including the petitioners herein were asked by her to return the said articles to her but they refused to do so and that it transpired that the said articles have been misappropriated by the accused persons-petitioners herein and that after refusing to return the said articles to the complainant, the accused persons including the petitioners herein threatened the complainant of dire consequences. However, it has been also averred and alleged in the impugned complaint by the complainant-respondent at Para-17 as follows, and the said averment assumes importance having regard to the facts of the case: “17. However, it has been also averred and alleged in the impugned complaint by the complainant-respondent at Para-17 as follows, and the said averment assumes importance having regard to the facts of the case: “17. The complainant had got knowledge from the reliable sources that the accused persons are going to dispose of the gold ornaments as they require money for investment.” In view of the aforesaid specific averments/allegations in the impugned complaint, it cannot by any sense of imagination be said that the petitioners herein have misappropriated or converted the alleged articles of the complainant respondent herein or converted the same to their own use that too with a dishonest intention as the complainant-respondent admits of the position that the articles are yet to be disposed of by the petitioners herein meaning thereby not having either dishonestly misappropriated or converted by the petitioners herein to their own use. Thus, in absence of any such overt act on the part of petitioners herein, no dishonest motive can be imputed to them simply because they allegedly detained/retained valuable articles of the complainant-respondent herein in their custody as for the commission of offences under section 403 and 406 there has to be actual misappropriation or conversion of the things by the accused persons to his/their own use. Furthermore it is significant to mention here that it is settled law that in the offence of criminal breach of trust though it involves a civil wrong in respect of which the complainant may seek his/her redressal for damages in a civil court, yet every misappropriation of property or breach of trust in the absence of mens rea or criminal intention cannot said to be justifying legally a criminal prosecution, in short, mens rea or criminal intention is the gist of the offence sections 403 and 406 IPC. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid position of law and the impugned complaint as well as the material on record, it can safely be said that the offences under sections 403 and 406 IPC are not made out against the petitioners herein. 12. Having held the impugned complaint and material on record not constituting the offences under Sections 403 and 406 IPC against the petitioners herein, the proceedings undertaken thereon the impugned complaint and impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Magistrate as well need to be looked into. 12. Having held the impugned complaint and material on record not constituting the offences under Sections 403 and 406 IPC against the petitioners herein, the proceedings undertaken thereon the impugned complaint and impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Magistrate as well need to be looked into. However, before adverting to the same, a reference hereunder to the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 749 also become necessary being relevant wherein at Para 28 following has been laid down: “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. A further reference in regard to above to the Judgment of the Apex Court Judgment passed in Mehmood ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda & Ors. (2015) 12 SCC 420 also becomes important wherein at Paras 20, 21 and 22 of the Judgment following has been provided: “20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. (2015) 12 SCC 420 also becomes important wherein at Paras 20, 21 and 22 of the Judgment following has been provided: “20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Limited (supra), to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter. 21. Under section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under section 190(1)(c) of Cr.P.C., he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that “a complaint of facts which constitute such offence.” Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance under section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. The complaint is simply to be rejected. 22. The steps taken by the Magistrate under section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. followed by Section 204 Cr.P.C. should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and 31 CRMC No. 58/2019 the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under section 203 Cr.P.C. when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under section 203 Cr.P.C. when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under section 202 Cr.P.C., if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under section 204 Cr.P.C., by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under sections 190/204 Cr.P.C., the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.” 13. In view of the aforesaid position of law and having regard to the nature of impugned complaint, record attached therewith, proceedings undertaken thereon including the impugned order dated 22.07.2022, it is apparent that the Magistrate has exhibited lack of application of mind and instead had approached in the matter casually and in mechanical manner. 14. Viewed thus, what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the petition succeeds and as consequences whereof, the impugned complaint, proceedings initiated thereon including the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 insofar as it pertain to the petitioners, are quashed. 15. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.