Investment in a partnership business does not, by itself, constitute entrustment under Section 405 IPC.

The petitioner alleged that Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 inducted him into a partnership for construction work and that he invested a total of ₹6,75,900 in three instalments.

After learning that the work had been allotted to another person, he alleged that the opposite parties returned ₹2,32,000 but withheld the balance.

The Magistrate dismissed Complaint Case No. 1528 of 2018, finding insufficient material to summon the accused; the Sessions Judge dismissed the petitioner’s revision, noting the absence of proof of the investment and of material establishing the alleged offences.

The petitioner then invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging both orders.

1. Whether the allegations, taken at their highest, disclosed the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, including deception or fraudulent intent from the inception of the transaction.

2. Whether the petitioner’s investment in the partnership amounted to entrustment of property sufficient to disclose criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC.

3. Whether the complaint contained the essential ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC or voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323, read with Section 34 IPC.

4. Whether the impugned orders warranted interference under Section 482 CrPC.

Section 420 IPC requires deception and an intention to cheat at the inception of the transaction; a subsequent breach of contract, without such initial intent, does not constitute cheating, as held in Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336.

Criminal breach of trust under Sections 405 and 406 IPC requires entrustment of property followed by dishonest misappropriation, conversion, or use in violation of a legal direction; mere dominion over property as a partner is not entrustment, as explained in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641, and Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 185.

Criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC requires a threat of injury made with intent to cause alarm or to compel or restrain conduct, as stated in Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 14 SCC 207.

Section 323 IPC requires voluntarily causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, with the requisite intention or knowledge.

Section 482 CrPC confers the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, which the petitioner invoked to challenge the impugned orders.

The Court held that the complaint alleged an investment in a partnership but did not allege deception by the opposite parties at the transaction’s inception; therefore, even accepting the allegations as true, the essential element of cheating was absent.

The investment was made in the partnership business and did not, without more, constitute property entrusted to the opposite parties; the requirements of criminal breach of trust were therefore unmet.

The allegations likewise lacked the essential elements of a threat intended to cause alarm and of bodily pain, disease, or infirmity.

The Court consequently found no offence disclosed on the complaint’s allegations and no basis to grant the relief sought under Section 482 CrPC.

Finding no justifiable basis to interfere with the Magistrate’s dismissal of the complaint or the Sessions Judge’s dismissal of the revision, the Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.