JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.10.2021, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 761 of 2019 and to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said case. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant took the Hywa Vehicle of the petitioner on monthly payment to be made by the petitioner of Rs.1,25,000/- starting from 31.03.2019 for transporting the materials to be ordered to be done by the petitioner but by 15.09.2019 a sum of Rs.4,35,458/- was due and outstanding to the complainant, by the petitioner. The co-accused –Md. Irfan issued a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- and the other co- accused –Rinku Ansari issued a cheque of Rs.1,17,518/- which cheques on being deposited by the complainant in his bank account were dishonoured because of insufficient balance in the account of the drawers of the said cheques. On 18.10.2019, when the complainant again demanded Rs.4,35,458/-, the complainant was abused and driven out. The learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara taking into consideration the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses directed issuance of summons inter-alia against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Gandhi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr. M.P. No. 2490 of 2020 dated 10.09.2025 that this Court in that case relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 749 wherein it has been held that the High court has jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Another , (2007) 7 SCC 373 , in Para-8 of which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that when the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute, non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. 7. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 10 SCC 663 paragraph-18 of which reads as under:- “18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.” (Emphasis supplied) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that property has been retained by the accused persons but it must also be shown that the accused persons dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest entrustment of any property to the petitioner. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the complainant used to take the vehicle of the petitioner for transportation of stone and the petitioner was supposed to pay Rs.1,25,000/- per month to the complainant but the petitioner did not pay an outstanding amount of Rs.4,35,458/- as on 15.09.2019. 9. Under such circumstances, in the absence of the essential ingredient of entrustment of any property to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out, hence the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 18.10.2021, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 761 of 2019 and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said P.C.R. Case No. 761 of 2019 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 18.10.2021, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 761 of 2019 and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said P.C.R. Case No. 761 of 2019 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 11. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.