of the Truck was not known. Otherwise also, since the Truck was not returned, it could be taken that it has been misappropriated or disposed of by the accused in violation of the agreement, thereby disclosing commission of an offence of criminal breach of trust. Submissions on behalf of Accused-respondents 14. On behalf of accused respondent(s), it was submitted: a. The FIR did not disclose commission of any offence, therefore the High Court was justified in quashing the entire proceeding. b. There was no specific allegation in the FIR regarding disposal or misappropriation of the Truck, hence no case of criminal breach of trust was made out. c. The offence of cheating is not made out inasmuch as dishonest intention from the very Page 6 of 11beginning is not disclosed by the averments in the FIR. d. The High Court was justified in quashing the cognizance order and further proceedings. Submissions on behalf of State 15. On behalf of State, it is submitted through an affidavit that the