Entrustment of property is a sine qua non for constituting an offence of criminal breach of trust.

The Petitioner sought quashing of a cognizance order dated 04.07.2018 in Complaint Case No. 770(c) of 2017.

The Complainant (Opposite Party No. 2), a Lecturer at Bhubneshwari Raja College, alleged that although the college received government grant-in-aid from 2009 for staff appointed prior to 26.03.2008, salary was being paid to ineligible persons appointed after the cutoff date or those drawing salaries from two places.

While the informant later entered into a compromise with some accused on 01.05.2018, several intervenor-witnesses moved the court to proceed with the case.

Consequently, the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner despite the informant's compromise.

1. Whether a prima facie case under Sections 409 and 120B of the IPC is established when the core ingredient of "entrustment" is absent?

2. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in light of the available statutory remedies for educational grant disputes?

The court primarily applied Section 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) and Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

It emphasized the established legal principle that "entrustment of property" is a sine qua non (essential condition) for constituting an offence under Section 409.

The court acknowledged the Bihar Grant to Educational Institution Authority Rules, 2015, as the appropriate regulatory framework for resolving grant-related grievances.

The Court observed that the dispute centered on the improper distribution of government grant-in-aid and the denial of funds to certain staff members.

It reasoned that the prosecution failed to satisfy the basic legal ingredients of Section 409 because there was no evidence of "entrustment" of property to the petitioner in the manner required by law.

The Court found that the Magistrate had taken cognizance primarily because the intervenor-applicants wished to proceed, without adequately evaluating if a criminal offence was actually made out.

It concluded that while the intervenors should not be left without a remedy, the dispute was better suited for the specialized Tribunal rather than a criminal court.

The Court held that a case under Section 409 IPC cannot stand without proving entrustment.

It granted liberty to the intervenor-applicants to either proceed afresh or move the Tribunal constituted under the Bihar Grant to Educational Institution Authority Rule, 2015, for redressal of their grievances.