Sale transaction disputes cannot become criminal prosecution absent entrustment; refusal to quash was set aside.

A dispute arising from a sale transaction and alleged non-payment of the balance price was held not to disclose criminal breach of trust, because mere failure to pay the remaining amount did not show entrustment. The Court also held that a civil recovery claim could not be converted into criminal prosecution on the facts pleaded, and that the High Court erred in treating the hardship of civil litigation as a reason to continue the criminal case. The order refusing quashing was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint arising from a sale transaction and non-payment of the balance price disclosed the ingredients of criminal breach of trust or cheating, and whether the refusal to quash the proceedings was sustainable.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a business transaction for supply of goods, partial payment, and a claim for the unpaid balance. On the complainant's own case, the dispute was essentially about recovery of money due under a sale transaction. In such a case, mere non-payment of the balance amount does not establish entrustment, which is essential for criminal breach of trust. The materials also did not justify converting a civil recovery dispute into criminal prosecution. The reasoning of the High Court, which treated the length and difficulty of civil litigation as a reason to permit criminal proceedings, was held to be legally erroneous.

Conclusion: The proceedings did not disclose a sustainable criminal case for recovery of the alleged dues, and the order refusing quashing could not stand. The matter was set aside and remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration.

---