By the Court:- ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls though the opposite party No.2 has put his appearance through Advocate. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Sakchi P.S. Case No.118 of 2021 currently pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 being the Bank Manager at the time of filing of the Complaint Case No.722 of 2021, petitioner No.2 being the Assistant Branch Manager at the same point of time, the petitioner No.3 being the Regional Head and the petitioner No.4 being the Regional Collection Officer of Lakshmi Vilas Bank. In the year 2015, the then Manager of the Bank appointed the complainant as gold jewel appraiser of the Bank. The Lakshmi Vilas Bank disbursed loan to the person in need of money on pledging of gold. The wife and the son of the complainant took loan from the said Bank after pledging their gold. When the son of the complainant went to the Bank for release of the pledged gold with money, the petitioner No.1 being the Branch Manager did not release the same to him and told him to leave the Bank and advised to go to court for release of the gold and also told that he will not release the gold. The complainant himself evaluated the gold on behalf of the said bank, pledged by his wife and son, at the time of their taking the loan from the said Bank by pledging gold. Several gold ornaments pledged by the wife of the complainant, have been taken back by the wife of the complainant, after repayment of loan and the said loan accounts has been closed by the Bank but the petitioners have forcibly kept other gold ornaments pledged by the wife and the son of the complainant in the Bank, forcibly and even though the wife and son of the complainant expressed their desire to deposit the money of the outstanding loan amounts, the Bank is not returning their jewelleries. There is also allegation that the petitioners along with the co- accused persons in furtherance of their common intention are dissolving the jewelleries in the shop of the co-accused Sitaram Babal and are keeping the maximum part of the gold from such jewelleries with them and with less gold somehow they are preparing jewelleries, looking exactly the same which was pledged by the loanees, as per the photographs taken at the time of pledging of the gold and are keeping such manufactured jewelleries in the envelope of the customers of the Bank but the customers are not getting such information. It is the further case of the complainant that on 17.12.2018, the petitioner No.1 at about 6 PM called the complainant to the Bank through the co-accused Rakesh Roshan Sharma, who was the earlier Bank Manager and forcibly made the complainant to write a letter and made the complainant to sign the same, but did not give the photocopy of the said letter written and signed by the complainant, to the complainant. Earlier the petitioner No.1 filed the Complaint Case No.2443 of 2019 against the complainant, his wife, son and other customers, which upon being referred to Police, Sakchi P.S. Case No.171 of 2019 has been registered and the complainant is one of the accused of that case. In the letter dated 02.01.2019 issued by the Chief Manager, MSME Head to the complainant, where it has been mentioned that the complainant has committed illegal act deliberately, keeping spurious jewelleries with the Bank and thereby misappropriated public money. It is also alleged that one customer namely Aryan Sarkar who pledged a gold chain weighing 151 grams, his article was dissolved too and upon getting such information, Aryan Sarkar complained to the head office of the Bank and then only, a similar looking chain as mentioned in photo was prepared by the Bank Manager from somewhere. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur referred the Complaint Case No.722 of 2021 to police and on the basis of the same, Sakchi P.S. Case No.118 of 2021 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 406 , 409, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506, 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others vs. State of West Bengal & Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 and submits that in para-27, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has mentioned the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust which reads as under:- “27. Section 405 IPC defines “criminal breach of trust” which 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 wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.” The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are: (1) The accused must be entrusted with the property or with dominion over it, (2) The person so entrusted must use that property, or; (3) The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so in violation, (a) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or; (b) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.” and in para-31 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has mentioned the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in para-37 of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 , the relevant portion of para-6 of which reads as under :- “6. Xxxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. Xxxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 , paragraphs- 12 to 17 of that judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has considered the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 467 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and the making of false document has mentioned in Section 464 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and also dealt with the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE in para-18 to 24. It is also submitted that in this case, even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences in respect of which the FIR has been registered is made out against any of the accused persons. It is then submitted that since admittedly, the wife and the son of the complainant have taken loan from the Lakshmi Vilas Bank by pledging their gold jewelleries, the liability of the Bank to return the gold jewelleries arises only after paying back the loan amount. It is then submitted that it is the admitted case of the complainant that the wife and son of the complainant have expressed their desire to pay back the loan, but it is not even the case of the complainant that they have paid back the loan and as admittedly the wife and son of the complainant have not paid back the loan admittedly taken by them, the question of cheating or criminal breach of trust does not arise. 8. 8. So far as the contention of the complainant about the general and omnibus allegation that the petitioners are getting the pledged gold of customers by preparing similar jewelleries with lesser amount of gold and keeping the part of the gold with themselves is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is vague and without any details. It is next submitted that there is no allegation as to who was the customer, whose pledged gold has been tampered with by any of the petitioners. It is further submitted that though investigation of the case is going for more than four years, but as yet not a single person has come forward to the police to show that the gold pledged by him has been tampered with by any of the employees of the Bank. It is also submitted that so far as Aryan Sarkar who has been projected as a victim of the offence is concerned, there is no allegation against any of the petitioners who were involved in the offence which allegedly was committed in respect of Aryan Sarkar and as admittedly, the Bank has returned the gold jewellery pledged by Aryan Sarkar; so, the grievance of Aryan Sarkar has already been redressed by the Bank. Therefore, on this score also no offence can be attributed to any of the petitioners. It is then submitted that admittedly the complainant has given in writing that he misappropriated public money, he has committed illegal act and was instrumental by pledging of spurious gold and has misappropriated public money. Drawing attention of this Court to the FIR of Sakchi P.S. Case No.171 of 2019 of which there is a reference in the FIR of this case and which case was instituted by Lakshmi Vilas Bank, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the intention of the complainant of wrecking vengeance by falsely implicating the petitioners who are admittedly the officers of Lakshmi Vilas Bank is apparent. Hence, it is submitted that as the very purpose of filing the complaint, which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, Sakchi P.S. Case No.118 of 2021 was registered, is for wrecking vengeance and even though the entire allegations made in the same are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offence for which, the FIR has been registered is made out against the petitioners; hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that there is allegation against the petitioners of dissolving the gold jewellery of the customers and preparing similar looking jewelleries on the basis of the photograph of the jewelleries kept at the time of pledging of the gold albeit with less weight of gold involved and misappropriating the remaining gold and the same amounts to the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and since the investigation of the case is still going on, hence, at this stage, it will not be proper to quash the entire criminal proceedings. The learned Special Public Prosecutor next submits that the institution of Complaint Case No.2443 of 2019 basing upon which Sakchi P.S. Case No.171 of 2019 has been registered, is not proper because more than two years, thereafter the complainant has mentioned in this complaint for the first time that such admission on his part in writing that he committed the offences, was forcibly obtained from him. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the transaction between the wife and the son of the complainant and the Bank concerning the loan taken by the wife and the son of the complainant by pledging their gold is concerned, as has right been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the liability of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank to return the pledged gold will arise only when the loanee pays back the entire loan amounts taken by them with interest due thereon. Admittedly, the wife and the son of the complainant have not paid back the loan but they only expressed their desire to pay back the loan. Since by mere expressing the desire to pay back the loan, will not make the Bank liable to return the gold pledged by the wife and the son of the complainant for taking the loan; therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 /409 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out, so far as the transactions relating to the wife and the son of the complainant and the Bank is concerned. 11. So far as the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that there is allegation against the petitioners of dissolving the pledged jewelleries of several customers and replacing them with jewelleries of similar looking jewelleries but with less weight of gold involved and taking the part of the differential amount of the gold is concerned, as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that such allegations are vague, general and omnibus in nature; there is not a single case cited by the complainant specifically mentioning any particular loan amount, either by describing loanees from the loan amounts concerned, in which such thing has been done by the petitioners. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the complainant is an accused of the case, instituted by the Bank, of which there is a reference in para-11 of this FIR. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the complainant is an accused of the case, instituted by the Bank, of which there is a reference in para-11 of this FIR. Hence, the motive on the part of the complainant to wreck vengeance by instituting the false case is apparent. 12. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahmood Ali & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2023) 15 SCC 488 para-13 of which reads as under:- “13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.” (Emphasis supplied) that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case. 13. Keeping in view the admitted motive on the part of the complainant for instituting a frivolous and vexatious proceeding, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the vague allegations made, the materials available in the record is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 14. 13. Keeping in view the admitted motive on the part of the complainant for instituting a frivolous and vexatious proceeding, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the vague allegations made, the materials available in the record is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, as has already been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, the ingredients of which has been mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others vs. State of West Bengal & Others (supra), the accused must play deception since the very beginning of the transactions between the parties. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties rather it is the admitted case of the complainant that several of the gold loans earlier taken by the wife and the son of the complainant were closed; consequent upon paying back the loan amounts, by the wife and the son of the complainant and upon such paying back the loan, the pledged gold jewelleries have been returned to them and the loan accounts have been closed. 16. Under such circumstances, in the absence of the essential ingredients of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties being made against the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out. 17. So far as the offence punishable under Section 467 /468 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, they relate to the offence of forgery but to constitute the offence of forgery, there has to be a creation of false document. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of creating any false document. The allegation, at best, is regarding tampering with the jewelleries but the jewelleries cannot be termed as creation of a false document. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of creating any false document. The allegation, at best, is regarding tampering with the jewelleries but the jewelleries cannot be termed as creation of a false document. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 467 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE nor the offence punishable under Section 468 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is made out. 18. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 /506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, this Court, after going through the materials available in the records, do not find any allegation against the petitioners of intentionally insulting the complainant or anyone else to provoke them to commit breach of peace or any further offence. In the absence of that, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out. Similarly, there is no allegation against the petitioners of criminally intimidating the complainant or anyone else by threatening with injury to his personal reputation or property with intent to cause alarm to such victim or to cause such victim to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which the person is legally entitled to do. The only allegation is that the petitioners pressurized the complainant to give in writing that he has committed the illegal acts of being instrumental in deposit of spurious jewelleries with the Bank and misappropriating public property. Pressure cannot be equated with threatening of any injury. Further, such an allegation is made more than two years after such act of the petitioners, giving in writing, for the first time, after two years. Hence, keeping in view of the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that, even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is also not made out against the petitioners. 19. Hence, keeping in view of the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that, even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is also not made out against the petitioners. 19. In view of the discussions made above as none of the offences for which the FIR has been registered is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety; therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR arising out of Sakchi P.S. Case No.118 of 2021 be quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 20. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR arising out of Sakchi P.S. Case No.118 of 2021 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 21. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.