JUDGMENT : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties. 2. The applicant has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 19/06/2021, registered as Crime No. 0603/2021, at the non- applicant No.1, Police Station, Akot, District Akola, for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has further prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet/final report dated 01/02/2023 bearing charge-sheet No. 10 of 2023. 3. As per the First Information Report under challenge, the non- applicant No. 2 states that the applicant and one co-accused, namely, Mangesh Navinchandra Bondre, committed large-scale misappropriation of funds in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Akot, from 2013-14 to 2019-20. It is further stated that the special auditor found that the co-accused Mangesh misappropriated an amount of Rs.16,19,785/- by issuing fake receipts under the loan scheme, not recording the receipts in the cash book or ledger, and appropriating the money which was handed over to the present applicant as a Secretary of the APMC. It is further stated that both the accused acted in collusion with the Auditor and delayed the submission of the final audit by one year. It is further stated that the then Chairman, in the year 2017, complained that the applicant deliberately failed to recover market fees from 36 purchasers, resulting in wrongful loss to the APMC. Thus, on these allegations the First Information Report was lodged which is challenged in the present application. 4. We have heard Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Nikhil Tekade, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non- applicant No.1/State, Shri J.B. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.2, and Shri K.S. Narwade, learned Counsel for the intervenor/APMC. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant by taking us through the voluminous record submits that the allegations levelled in the First Information Report, even if they are taken on their face value, do not make out any offence against the present applicant. He submits that the entire misappropriation of Rs.17,57,465/- stands admitted by the co-accused Mangesh, and he has fully repaid the said amount with 14% interest. He submits that the entire misappropriation of Rs.17,57,465/- stands admitted by the co-accused Mangesh, and he has fully repaid the said amount with 14% interest. He further states that no role of whatsoever nature is attributed to the present applicant, and this fact is also recorded in the special audit report. 6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the non- applicant No. 2 i.e., the original informant, harbours an ill will against the applicant as the non-applicant No. 2 was disqualified from the post of Director of APMC for having obtained the same by filing false affidavit and documents. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel submits that due to the disqualification of the non- applicant No. 2, he is in the habit of filing false and frivolous complaints. The sole object is of harassing and pressurizing him. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel prays for allowing the application and quashing the First Information Report and the charge sheet in question. 7. Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly refuted the allegations in the present application and stated that large-scale misappropriation of public funds had been done by the applicants, and therefore, this would not be a fit case for quashing the proceedings in its entirety at this stage. He further submits that being a Secretary of the APMC, Akot, it was a bounden duty of the applicant to supervise, monitor, and maintain proper accounts and ensure that all amounts received were duly entered and deposited. Having felt so, the applicant has misappropriated the funds and is equally liable and responsible for the offences as mentioned in the First Information Report. 8. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant No. 2 fully supports the contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and submits that the Chairman Ramesh Bondre had lodged a specific complaint on 28/11/2017, accusing the applicant of colluding with traders to suppress payment of market fees, thereby causing huge loss to the APMC. He further places reliance on the enquiry report of the Deputy Tahsildar, which confirms that the applicant had deliberately failed to recover dues from the 36 purchasers. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the applicant is vicariously liable for systematic misappropriation running into course. 9. Learned Counsel for the intervenor/APMC supports the learned Counsel for the State, as also the First Informant, and reiterated the submissions. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the applicant is vicariously liable for systematic misappropriation running into course. 9. Learned Counsel for the intervenor/APMC supports the learned Counsel for the State, as also the First Informant, and reiterated the submissions. He submits that although the First Information Report was lodged by the non-applicant No. 2, the real and direct victim of the offences is the intervener APMC, and the applicant has deliberately suppressed the material fact from this Court. He also submits that another First Information Report bearing No. 432/2022 stands registered against the applicant at Akot Police Station for theft/dishonest misappropriation of APMC. Thus, the learned Counsel for the non-applicants prays for rejection of the application. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Before proceeding further, and as can be seen from the First Information Report, the offence complained of is under Section 409, which speaks about criminal breach of trust by public servant etc., and 420, which speaks of cheating. 11. In the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2024) 10 SCC 690 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down as under : “35. This Court in its decision in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar expounded the difference in the ingredients required for constituting of an offence of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) vis-à-vis the offence of cheating (Section 420). The relevant observations read as under: (SCC p. 246. paras 9-10) "9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are: (1) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property: (ii) that person entrusted: (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust. 10. 10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived: and (iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property." 36. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients: In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) (1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and (2) The person entrusted: (a)Dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or (b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of: (i)Any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged: or (ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see: S. W. Palunitkar) Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: (1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission; (2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or (3) The consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab) 37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception. 38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception. 38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 IPC, punishable under Section 420 IPC.” 12. Thus, the Supreme Court has in unequivocal terms laid down that the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating are mutually exclusive and then if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 is committed by the accused then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which is punishable under Section 420 thereof. Furthermore, as can be seen from the First Information Report in question, the primary allegations revolved around the other co-accused, namely, Mangesh Navinchandra Bondre. It is also noteworthy to mention that, as far as allegations against the applicant regarding failure to deposit market fees with respect to 36 traders, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, even the executive committee of the APMC has resolved to take action only against three traders and authorization was given to the co-accused Bondre. Therefore, it can safely be said that the applicant has no concern with the said aspect. It is also an admitted fact on record that the co-accused Bondre has already deposited the amount in question. 13. As can be seen from the audit report, the primary allegations of misappropriation are against Bondre, who, as stated above, has deposited the amount. Furthermore, the allegations in the First Information Report regarding misappropriation for various financial years are against the said accountant, Mangesh, and not against the present applicant. 13. As can be seen from the audit report, the primary allegations of misappropriation are against Bondre, who, as stated above, has deposited the amount. Furthermore, the allegations in the First Information Report regarding misappropriation for various financial years are against the said accountant, Mangesh, and not against the present applicant. We have also gone through the opinion of the District Government Pleader, Akola who specifically states that there is no case made out as against the present applicant is concerned. In spite of this position, the non-applicant No.1 has chosen to file the First Information Report and the consequent charge sheet. In our view, therefore, the ingredients essential for making out a case for offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out as far as the present applicant is concerned. Thus, the case would squarely fall within the well laid down parameters of paragraph No.102 of the judgment reported in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and more particularly Clause 1, 3, and 7 thereof : “102..............… (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) ... (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com- plaint 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) .... (5) ... (6) ... (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 14. We, therefore, think this to be a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as continuation of the proceeding against the applicant would be an abuse of the process of the Court. We therefore proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i) The application is allowed. We, therefore, think this to be a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as continuation of the proceeding against the applicant would be an abuse of the process of the Court. We therefore proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i) The application is allowed. ii) The First Information Report dated 19.06.2021, vide Crime No. 0603 of 2021, registered by the Police Station Akot, District Akola, for offence under Sections 420, 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as also, charge-sheet dated 01.02.2023, bearing No. 10/2023, are hereby quashed and set aside as far as the present applicant - Rajkumar S/o Yashwantrao Malve is concerned. 15. The application is disposed of accordingly.