Entrustment and sworn statement consistency are essential before criminal process issues for breach of trust and cheating allegations.

Criminal process for offences under sections 406 and 420 read with section 34 IPC may be quashed where the complaint and sworn verification statement materially differ and the basic ingredients of the offence are not disclosed. The text emphasises that criminal breach of trust requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation or conversion, and that no overt act or entrustment was shown against the accused in the verified statement. It also notes that in proceedings under section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the sworn statement and ensure the complaint is properly substantiated. On these facts, the continuation of proceedings was treated as an abuse of process and the process order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether process issued against the petitioner for offences under sections 406 and 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was liable to be quashed for want of entrustment and for material discrepancy between the complaint and the verification statement.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that the complainant had paid a deposit which was later said to have been diverted to the petitioner, but the verification statement did not contain the allegations made against the petitioner. No overt act was attributed to the petitioner in the verified statement, and there was no material to show entrustment of the to him. Since criminal breach of trust under section 405 requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property, the basic ingredients were not disclosed against the petitioner. In proceedings under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind to the sworn statement and ensure that the complaint is substantiated by the examination on oath. The discrepancy between the complaint and the verification statement showed non-application of mind by the Magistrate, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

Conclusion: The order issuing process against the petitioner was unsustainable and was quashed and set aside.

---