JUDGMENT A.N. Mukharji, J. This application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated the 2nd April, 1971, passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna City, taking cognizance of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 2. The facts giving rise to this application are that Shri Baldeo Singh, opposite party No. 1, filed a complaint against this petitioner before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna City, alleging that there was a contract of sale between him and the petitioner, as a result of which he supplied glass goods worth Rs. 11,030/- to the petitioner on payment of two United Commercial Bank's drafts for Rs. 5,000/- each and one United Commercial Bank's cheque dated the 5th September, 1970; for Rs. 1030/- The allegation in the petition of complaint further is that both the Bank Drafts were cashed, but the cheque for Rs. 1030/- could not be cashed as the payment was stopped at the instance of the petitioner. The complainant contacted the petitioner with regard to the amount of Rs. 1030/- but on one pretext or another he put off the matter of payment of this amount. The complainant served a pleader's notice on the petitioner, but the latter refused to accept the same, and, hence, the complainant filed the petition of complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna City, who, after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation, took cognizance of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. It is against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate that the petitioner has come up to this Court. 4. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that the petition of complaint filed in this case does not make out an offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended by him that at best it is purely a civil matter and that the opposite party No.1 filed the petition of complaint mala fide in order to put undue pressure on the petitioner; My attention has been drawn to the allegations made in this application in which the petitioner states that he had actually stopped payment of the money on the cheque for Rs. 1030/-, because when the glass goods reached the destination, it was noticed that some of the boxes contained only broken glass plates and not glass utensils. It is further asserted in the petition of revision that the refusal of opposite party No. 1 to settle the damage and deducting the advance made by the petitioner indicated fraudulent intention of opposite party No. 1. Mr. Hussain has further urged that there is no allegation in the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party No. 1 that this petitioner had any intention to cheat at the time of inception of the contract of sale and unless this fact is clearly asserted, no offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. In support of this contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the case of the State of Kerala Vs. A Preed Pillai and another. Their Lordships have held in this case that to held a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. Such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfill the promise". So, the mere fact that the cheque for Rs. 1030/- could not be cashed by opposite party No. 1 will not indicate any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the time when he entered into the contract for sale with opposite party No. 1. It is not alleged in the petition of complaint that the petitioner had no money with him when he entered into the contract of sale. As a matter of fact, the petitioner asserts that for the reasons mentioned in his application, he has stopped, payment under this cheque. 5. In business dealings, things often happen which betray confidence and deceptions which may arouse moral indignation; but nevertheless they appear to be civil wrong which can be set right by civil court. Simply because the petitioner stopped payment of the money under the cheque for Rs. 1030/-, it can not be said that he has committed an offence which can be punished in criminal courts. Every breach of contract cannot amount to a criminal act and it is, in my opinion, an abuse of the process of the court to compel men to conform to high standard of dealings in business matters. 1030/-, it can not be said that he has committed an offence which can be punished in criminal courts. Every breach of contract cannot amount to a criminal act and it is, in my opinion, an abuse of the process of the court to compel men to conform to high standard of dealings in business matters. Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code has given wide powers to the High Court to quash a proceeding if it finds that such an order is necessary even to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. I have perused the petition of complaint in the instant case, and, in my opinion, the allegations do not clearly make out an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. At best, there is a civil liability and the matter can easily be decided in a Civil Court. It will be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow the proceeding to continue against the petitioner. 6. In the result, the application is allowed, and the order taking cognizance against the petitioner as also the proceeding pending against him are hereby quashed. Application allowed.