Criminal proceedings for breach of trust cannot be sustained in property disputes lacking clear entrustment and ownership.

The applicants (Accused Nos. 1–4) challenged an order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danta, which issued process against them for offences under Sections 406 and 506(2) of the IPC

Respondent No. 2 (complainant) alleged that as the testamentary successor of the deceased Mahant Shri Raghavsharanji Maharaj, a Bolero Car in his possession was dishonestly taken and retained by the applicants

The police inquiry report indicated the vehicle belonged to the Ashram and that the applicants held the original RC book and bills

Applicant No. 1 had been declared the manager of the deceased Mahant’s properties by the Collector, Jodhpur

Both parties claimed inheritance rights based on separate Wills

Whether the essential ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust under Section 405 IPC are satisfied when ownership of the property is a matter of a pending civil/succession dispute

Whether the issuance of process under Section 506(2) IPC is sustainable in the absence of specific averments regarding the nature of the threat or intimidation

The Court applied Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines "Criminal Breach of Trust" as requiring the entrustment of property or dominion over it and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion

It noted that Section 406 provides the punishment for such breach

The Court further applied Section 506 of the IPC regarding criminal intimidation, requiring proof of a threat to cause injury

Additionally, the court referenced the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, noting that disputed inheritance of movable property must follow the prescribed legal procedure for administration rather than criminal prosecution

The Court observed that the dispute is essentially a civil battle over the estate of the deceased Mahant

It reasoned that for Section 405 IPC to apply, there must be a clear "entrustment" of property; however, since both parties are contesting ownership through competing Wills, the complainant failed to establish absolute ownership or a trust relationship

The Court found that instead of pursuing remedies under the Hindu Succession Act, the complainant improperly used criminal machinery

Regarding Section 506(2), the Court found the complaint lacked specific details of the words used or the nature of the threat, failing to meet the statutory threshold for "criminal intimidation"

Consequently, the Court determined that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process designed for harassment

It held that in the absence of established ownership and specific allegations of intimidation, the issuance of process under Sections 406 and 506(2) of the IPC was unsustainable

The related application for vacating interim relief (Cr.M.A. No. 1 of 2022) was also disposed of