Judgment 1. THE: Id. A. C. J. M., Sealdah, since directed the police to investigate and report in complaint case No. 653 of 1990, dated 30.5.1990, dated 30.5.1990, for commission of an offence of cheating, the Petitioner has come up before: me for quashing in connection with Entally P. S. Case No. 137, dated 10th July, 1990. 2. IN brief, the facts of the case are that the revisionist borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- during the currency of the year 1986 from S.B. Sur, the de facto complainant for promotion of his business. But the amount was never returned, in consequence an F. I. R. ensued. The Id. A.C.J.M. on 30.5.90, directed an investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C., 1973. The exploration of facts from the revisional application reveals that the transaction was preeminently a loan on payment of interest devoid of mens rea. The revisionist, although, paid a nominal amount in pursuance of his own offer dated 27. 6. 88 as taken payment of liquidation of loan but receipt thereof, since not granted, the subsequent payment of instalment did not occur. The FIR since does not disclose any cognizable offence, it is therefore, liable to be quashed along with the complaint the genesis of the occurrence is a civil dispute for which approach to the criminal forum is a bar. It is a civil liability adjudicable and enforceable in the civil forum alone. In the background of the publicity of the aforenoted facts, the quashing of proceeding is the appropriate relief in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. 3. MR. Roy appearing in support of revision is emphatic that the claim predominantly revolves round a contract gone into by and between the parties, the enforceability of which remains within the domain of the civil court. Criminal forum could never be the medium to excavate relief. As argued, a money claim for breach of the agreement being the proper remedy, the aid sought for within the realm of the Indian Penal Code attributes to build a castle in the air Besides, mens rea is essential which is patently absent. This being the last nail on the coffin, the pursuance of the FIR and the investigation following, therefore, becomes an idle parade. 4. MR. Roy founded his claim in Joseph Hyam, 10 CWN 1004, that breach of contract does not constitute any cheating when the representation was not entirely false. This being the last nail on the coffin, the pursuance of the FIR and the investigation following, therefore, becomes an idle parade. 4. MR. Roy founded his claim in Joseph Hyam, 10 CWN 1004, that breach of contract does not constitute any cheating when the representation was not entirely false. But there is one everwhelrning important factor, the predominance of which could hardly be ignored inasmuch as the Lordships concluded the issue based on evidence recorded by the Id. subordinate court. Therefore, substantiation or disproof of claim by way of actual discovery dominated the field. 5. MR. Ray relied on the Annexures, FIR plus the complaint and the combined reading of which completely out weighs the element of mens rea. The law laid down in N. C. Nagpal and Another v. The State and Another, 1979 cr. L. J. 998, and Madhab Rao, Jiwayi Rao Scindia and Another v. Sombhaji rao Chandraji Rao Angre and others, AIR 1988 SC 709 has no manner of application. None of the cases is of any relevance in the context of the factual exposure of the case before us. 6. MR. S. N. Chakraborty has seriously disputed the claim for quashing of the proceedings. In the case out of which this revision arises, there was, as pointed out by Mr. Chakraborty that factual scrutiny of the case is to hold the field. Quashing of FIR and investigation could hardly be interfered with by a court in exercise of its inherent power. A court could exercise such power where neither the FIR nor the complaint discloses any cognizable offence. Decisions are galore that the police investigation cannot be quashed by the High Court under the canopy of inherent jurisdiction, if it involves appreciation of evidence. Nazir Ahmed v. State, AIR 1945 PC 18. The principle of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , has not but reiterated or reaffirmed the law. Quashing is an extra ordinary step which should not be adhered to in exercise of inherent power when the FIR and the complaint disclose cognizable offence as already indicated. The principle of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , has not but reiterated or reaffirmed the law. Quashing is an extra ordinary step which should not be adhered to in exercise of inherent power when the FIR and the complaint disclose cognizable offence as already indicated. Returning to the factual premises of the case, both the FIR and the complaint tentatively present the elements of Section 420, 1pc as the money borrowed for promotion of business behind which fraudulent intent or misrepresentation, if was in existence could only be gathered by apreciation of evidence. 7. IN Mubrik Alt Ahmed v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 - 1957 cri. L. J. 1346, the offence under Section 420 has been classified into two compartments. The offence under Section 420 as defined in Section 415 relates to deceit or there was any dishonest or fraudulent representation to a person and the inducing of that person thereby to deliver property the action of the petitioner-revisionist, if verges on deceit that is dishonest or fraudulent representation is a matter for judicial enquiry to be buttressed by evidence. Thus, the contentions of Mr. [ray, does not hold water as the contentions of Mr. Chakraborty do. It will be too early to quash the proceedings when the offence is grave, awaiting proof. There will be a complete miscarriage of justice if the proceeding is quashed in the background of the allegations which the petitioner-revisionist has got adequate opportunity to trammel. Application rejected.