Cheating and criminal breach of trust require foundational allegations of dishonest intention, entrustment, or misappropriation to sustain prosecution.

A complaint alleging non-issuance of duplicate share certificates did not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust because the materials showed no dishonest inducement, entrustment, or misappropriation at the inception of the transaction. The dispute, at most, concerned a later disagreement over duplicate share certificates and transfer of shares, which was insufficient to establish offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. Since the substance of the complaint did not make out a prima facie criminal offence, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process and could be quashed in inherent jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed the ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings, and whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The complaint arose from the alleged non-issuance of duplicate share certificates after the originals were stated to have been misplaced. The allegations and the surrounding materials did not show any dishonest inducement, entrustment, or misappropriation at the inception of the transaction. The grievance, at its highest, related to a subsequent dispute concerning duplicate share certificates and transfer of shares, which did not by itself establish the ingredients of offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The substance of the complaint, and not the mere recital of penal provisions, had to disclose a prima facie criminal offence. In the absence of such foundational ingredients, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose a prima facie case under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the complaint does not disclose dishonest intention at the inception or the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust, the inherent power to quash may be exercised to prevent abuse of process.

---