High Court dismissed the petition to quash the criminal proceedings against Bank and its officials. On  allowing the appeal the Court held that, for bringing out the offence under the ambit of section 420 of the Code, the first information report must disclose the following ingredients : (a) that the appellant-bank had induced anyone since inception ; (b) that the inducement was fraudulent or dishonest ; and (c) that mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. The appellant-bank was a juristic person and as such, the question of mens rea did not arise. However, even reading the first information report and the complaint at their face value, there was nothing to show that the appellant-bank or its staff members had dishonestly induced someone to deliver any property to any person, and that mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. The ingredients to attract the offence under section 420 of the Code would not be available.  The Court also held that in so far as the provisions of section 409 of the Code were concerned, the following ingredients had to be made out : (a) that there had been any entrustment with the property, or with any dominion over property on a person in the capacity of a public servant or banker, etc. ; (b) that the person committed criminal breach of trust in respect of that property. For bringing out the case under criminal breach of trust, it had to be pointed out that a person, with whom entrustment of a property is made, has dishonestly misappropriated it, or converted it to his own use, or dishonestly used it, or disposed of that property. In the present case, there was not even an allegation of entrustment of the property which the appellant-bank had misappropriated or converted for its own use to the detriment of the Deputy Director (Investigation). The provisions of sections 406 and 409 of the Code would also not be applicable.  That since there was no entrustment of any property with the appellant-bank, the ingredients of section 462 of the Code were also not applicable. That likewise, since the offences under sections 206, 217 and 201 of the Code required mens rea, the ingredients of these sections also would not be available against the appellant-bank. That the first information report or complaint also did not show that the appellant-bank and its officers acted with any common intention or intentionally co-operated in the commission of any alleged offences. The provisions of sections 34, 37 and 120B of the Code would also not be applicable.  That, therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant-bank would cause undue hardship to the appellant-bank. Accordingly the  First information report is  quashed consequently the  prosecution against bank and its officials  is quashed. Order of High Court is set aside.