406 maintainable

No, filing case u/s 406 will not be of any help to you. On the contrary, the amount which as you stated you gave to your in-laws by cheque, the copy of the same if you have, you can produce at the time of evidence and can cross-examine your in-laws to that effect. For that you will have to get the details of your bank account which reflects the transfer of the amount from your account in the account of your in-laws. You can lead defense evidence and can bring the bank official of your bank to support your contention/defense.

You have enough prima facie evidence to make out a case for 406.

Dear 498,

Kindly peruse the provision of Sec 405 IPC. The ingredients are very specific.In the case of Sunil privision Sec 405 does not come into play as he has lent the money to his inlaws. The same was not entrusted by him with them for being kept in safe custody.

Sec 405: Criminal breach of trust: Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".

Dear Yougesh,

How do you differentiate lending and entrustment?

When I entrust some property and expect it to be returned. How is it different than lending.

How will defence/court prove if it was lending or entrustment?

Even if I lend some money to somebody and he after paying it partly back, refuses to pay back the rest of it.
Will it no amount to "Criminal breach of trust"? How about 420? Is 420 applicable?

Dear 498,

Lending in its most general sense is the temporary giving of money or property to another person with the expectation that it will be repaid. In a business and financial context, lending includes many different types of commercial loans.

On the contrary Entrustment means to give over (something) to another for care, protection, or performance.

It is not for the court to prove whether it was lending/entrustment. It is for the complainant to prove and for the accused to disprove.

If you have lend some money to some one and pay you some and does not repay the rest, in such case the person doing so is doing it deliberately and with an intention to cause wrongful loss, then in such case the act will be of Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect and shall be covered u/s 418 of I P C and not 420 I P C.

>It is not for the court to prove whether it was lending/entrustment. It is for the complainant to prove and for the accused to disprove.

Considering a private complaint is made.To make a prima facie case in pre-summoning stage. It is between magistrate(court) and complainant to argue whether it is entrustment or laon.

I think if one alleges that an amount of money was given for a specific purpose under specific conditions, it can come within the purview of entrustment.

1. Depending whether the same was only for entrustment.

2. Depending whether the same was for a particular cause and was not used for the same and misused or converted for personal gain.