6.This Court on perusal of the impugned final report finds that the offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out. There is no entrustment made to the petitioner, in order to attract the offence of criminal breach of trust. However, this Court finds that there was an Agreement between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on 30.12.2013. The Agreement shows that the petitioner promised 30% interest on the initial invested amount on Rs.19,60,000/-. Thereafter, the defacto complainant paid Rs.27,00,000/- on 03.04.2014; and the petitioner had promised 47% profit on the invested amount. The petitioner had not made any payment to the defacto complainant/second respondent as promised. While so, the defacto complainant/second respondent objected to the petitioner releasing the movie. The petitioner had given one more undertaking letter, wherein, he had promised to pay the principal sum in two instalments, profit on a subsequent date; and that if the project did not yield any profit, he would pay an interest on the said sum of Rs.48,00,000/-. All the above facts, disclose that at every stage, the representation has been made to the defacto complainant to induce him to part
