I. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) RAM Narain Agarwal accused-applicant has, through this application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code desired quashing of complaint dated 15. 9. 80 filed by one Rajendra Kumar in his capacity as authorised representative of one Radhey Lal against the accused-applicant under Section 420, Indian Penal Code in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Agra. The said complaint is filed as - annexure 1 to the affidavit of the applicant filed in support of the present application. ( 2 ) A perusal of the said complaint shows that the accused applicant approached the complainant on 26. 1. 79 representing himself to be a partner of M/s. United Pulverisers Bodla, Agra and that his factory was running at huge profits. He represented that he was a credible businessman though at that time was in dire need of Rs. 5,000/- which, if advanced to him, would be returned after 90 days positively. The complainant believed those assertions and assurances of the accused applicant, and paid Rs. 5,000/- in cash to him on execution of a Hundi by him in favour of Radhey Lal. It was alleged that the accused applicant did not pay the said amount after 90 days, despite written and oral demands. He even misbehaved with the messenger of the complainant and denied execution of the said Hundi. Enquiries in the market about the accused-applicant disclosed that he was in the habit of cheating people in the like manner and he had no such business as alleged by him. The accused- applicant, therefore, knowingly and dishonestly made false assertions and assurances to induce the complainant to pay Rs. 5,000/- in cash to him. It was alleged that the intention of the accused was mala fide and dishonest from the very beginning, and he never entertained the idea of returning the amount. With these allegations the accused applicant was said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code for which the complaint was filed citing Hajari Lal, Bengali Mal, Radhey Lal and Arun Kumar as witnesses. ( 3 ) AT the time of hearing the learned counsel for the applicant was absent - Only the learned counsel for the complainant apposite party (respondent) was heard. The present application is, therefore, being disposed of on its merits. ( 3 ) AT the time of hearing the learned counsel for the applicant was absent - Only the learned counsel for the complainant apposite party (respondent) was heard. The present application is, therefore, being disposed of on its merits. ( 4 ) IN the first place, it is to be noted that Rajendra Kumar, opposite party (respondent) bad described himself is the complainant in the complaint. He derived this authority to file the complaint by asserting that he was the authorised representative of Radhey Lal. It may be emphasised that said Radhey Lal was never described in the complaint as the complainant. However, the allegations in the complaint (annexure 1) are to the effect that all conversations took place between the accused-applicant and the complainant (Rajendra Kumar) and all the representations and assertions were made by the accused to the said complainant Rajendra Kumar who parted with Rs 5,000/- though the Hundi was said to be executed by the accused applicant in favour of Radhey Lal after receipt of said Rs. 5,000/ -. ( 5 ) THUS Rajendra Kumar complainant and not Radhey Lal was said to be deceived by the intentional dishonest representations and assertions of the accused - applicant with the result that he parted with Rs 5,000 by way of loan to the accused-applicant. Thus for all purposes, Rajendra Kumar claims himself to be the aggrieved person, though the Hundi was said to be executed by the accused-applicant in favour of Radhey Lal even though no verbal representation was made by the accused-applicant to him and no loan was demanded from him and no promise of repayment was made to him verbally (apart from what may flow from the terms of Hundi which too stands denied ). In this way, according to the complaint allegations Radhey Lal was not deceived and yet Rajendra Kumar complainant filed a complaint on behalf of Radhey Lal as a person authorised by him. In this background Radhey Lal had no knowledge of facts to file the complaint and any authority from him would not place the present emplainant Rajendra Kumar on any better footing. He does not file the complaint on his own initiative. ( 6 ) BESIDES, the alleged type of conversation assertions and assurances are a normal feature of any transaction of taking and advancing loan. Normally, it involves civil liability on breach of contract. He does not file the complaint on his own initiative. ( 6 ) BESIDES, the alleged type of conversation assertions and assurances are a normal feature of any transaction of taking and advancing loan. Normally, it involves civil liability on breach of contract. There is thin line of difference between a case of breach of contract and a case of cheating (and thereby inducing delivery of property ). A mere breach of contract is not, necessarily cheating. The element which converts the breach of contract into an offence of cheating is the dishonest or fraudulent intention of the accused at the time he induces the complainant to enter into the contract. Mere denial of the transaction or refusal to repay would not convert it to a criminal liability. The initial dishonest intention at the time of entering into the transaction is the basic ingredient for an offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) AS already discussed above, the complainant imputes this initial dishonest intention from the very beginning on the part of the accused-applicant on account of the alleged subsequent conduct, of the accused-applicant, but mere denial of the transaction and refusal to pay would not afford sufficient material to convert civil liability into criminal liability. There should be something more to infer initial dishonest intention. ( 8 ) THE complainant was examined under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code vide annexure 2 in which he stated to the effect that he looks after the business of Radhey Lal. Ram Narain Accused -applicant came and demanded Rs. 5,000/ -. First Radhey Lal refused but later on advanced on execution of Hundi. If it were known money would not have been advanced. Intention of the accused was bad from the very beginning. ( 9 ) BUT the Magistrate was not satisfied by his said statement so he entered into an enquiry under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code and recorded statement of Harish Chandra (Annexure 3) who deposed to the effect that loan of Rs. 5,000/- was taken by the accused from Radhey Lal in his presence on executing Hundi and once when he had gone to the accused-applicant (to make a demand for return of the loan) he denied having executed any Hundi or borrowed any amount. He has not uttered a word about the dishonest intention of the accused at the time of alleged borrowing of the money. He has not uttered a word about the dishonest intention of the accused at the time of alleged borrowing of the money. It may also by noted that his name was not specifically cited as a witness. To my mind the statement of Harish Chandra under section 202, Criminal. Procedure Code did not and could not improve things regarding the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate in the matter of summoning the accused under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. ( 10 ) THE needed mens rea on the part of the accused must exist at the very beginning when the transaction was entered into. The complainant certainly did not have any inclination of that mens rea on the part of the accused-applicant otherwise he would not have advanced Rs. 5000/- as contended by him. Thus, if the complainant opposite - party (respondent) alleged in his complaint that the said mens rea on the part of the accused-applicant existed from the very beginning, then that could nothing be but a belief on his part arising out of certain facts and circumstances subsequent to the date of said transaction. One circumstance, as alleged, is that the accused applicant did not pay back the said amount and on being approached through a messenger he misbehaved with him and denied having executed the said Hundi or having received Rs. 5,000/ -. But it may be noted that the name of the messenger was not disclosed in the complaint. So that assertion in a way seems to be vague. ( 11 ) THE second circumstance put forward is that the enquiries in the market about the accused applicant revealed that he was in the habit of cheating and had actually cheated many persons in a like manner. The names of the persons from whom enquiries were made in the market are not disclosed. For this reason the allegation apparently seems colourable. It was also alleged in the complaint that the accused applicant had asserted that he was a partner of M/s United Purverisers Badia, Agra and that market enquiries had revealed that the accused had no such business. However, the complainant under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code did not say a single word in that connection. Harish Chandra under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code did not mention a word about the business or market reputation of the accused. However, the complainant under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code did not say a single word in that connection. Harish Chandra under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code did not mention a word about the business or market reputation of the accused. So, there is not even prima facie evidence in this regard. Accordingly there was no material in the form of circumstances subsequent to the date of said transaction to support the fraudulent and dishonest intention on the part of the applicant at the very beginning when the alleged transaction was entered into. ( 12 ) THE reading of the complaint and the statements under sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code together, therefore, do not make out even prima facie any offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code. The matter is purely a civil matter. ( 13 ) THE application is therefore, allowed. The complaint dated 15. 9. 1980 filed by one Rajendra Kumar in his capacity as authorised representative of one Radhey Lal against Ram, Narain Agarwal accused-applicant under section 420 Indian Penal Code in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Agra and the proceedings pending there-under are quashed. Application allowed. .