JUDGMENT 1. - Misc. Petition No. 27/90 has been preferred against the order dated 4.10.1989 passed by learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Bhilwara whereby on submission of challan it was ordered to be registered and cognizance was taken against the petitioner Under section 420 Indian Penal Code. The second petition no. 43/90 has been filed against the order dated 6.12.1989 ordering to frame charge Under section 420 Indian Penal Code on the same challan. It has been prayed by the petitioner that the cognizance taken against her for the offence Under section 420 Indian Penal Code and framing of the charge may be quashed. 2. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts may be stated as under:- 3. Non-petitioner No. 2 Gajanand Mahadev Joshi, General Manager, Bhilwara Processors Ltd.; Bhilwara submitted a written report on 8.7.1989 at Police Station, Hamirgarh that the petitioner is the partner of M/s. Gopal Silk Mills, Gangapur and got its cloth processed in the non-petitioner No. 2's `Mill'. The petitioner did not make payment despite several reminders. In the last on several reminders, the petitioner gave a cheque No. 0432526 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Bhilwara for Rs. 12,000/-on 14.1.1989. The cheque was sent for collection but it was dishonoured on 16.1.1989. The cheque was again sent for collection but payment was not made and it was returned on 24.5.1989. It was alleged that the petitioner dishonestly issued the cheque without any intention to make payment and committed the offence of cheating punishable Under section 420 Indian Penal Code. It was further alleged that the petitioner had never the intention from the very beginning to make payment and the cheque was issued with dishonest intention. 4. A case Under section 420 Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Hamirgarh and investigation was undertaken. The Challan was submitted against the petitioner on 4.10.1989 and the impugned order was passed whereby the learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Bhilwara took cognizance for the offence Under section 420 Indian Penal Code ordering the registration of the case. The petitioner had filed an application on the same day that an offence Under section 420 Indian Penal Code is not at all made out and the case may not be registered against her. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Bhilwara took cognizance for the offence Under section 420 Indian Penal Code ordering the registration of the case. The petitioner had filed an application on the same day that an offence Under section 420 Indian Penal Code is not at all made out and the case may not be registered against her. Thereafter the case was adjourned and charge Under section 420 Indian Penal Code was framed against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 6.12.1989. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that even if the entire material placed on record is taken on its face value it does not make out any offence against the petitioner and therefore no cognizance could have been taken and the charge also could not have been framed. The essential ingredients of Section 420 Indian Penal Code defined in Section 415 Indian Penal Code are not made out and no case is disclosed against the petitioner. There is no allegation that there was any inducement made to the complainant and in pursuant to that inducement the complainant delivered in anything or did or abstain from doing anything. A cheque is issued for payment and is subsequently dishonoured then this fact per se does not make out the offence Under section 420 Indian Penal Code because it does not disclose any dishonest intention at the time of issuing the cheque. It is further argued that the parties had regular business dealings and in the course of business, cheques were being issued for payment. In these circumstances if the cheque in question which was given for payment was dishonoured then no case is made out that the petitioner had any dishonest intention and committed the act of cheating. At the most it is contended that there is a dispute of civil nature between the parties and the non-petitioner No. 2 cannot be allowed to abuse the process of criminal law in order to put pressure on the basis of criminal prosecution. 6. At the most it is contended that there is a dispute of civil nature between the parties and the non-petitioner No. 2 cannot be allowed to abuse the process of criminal law in order to put pressure on the basis of criminal prosecution. 6. Learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner was not making payment despite several reminders and the petitioner had the dishonest intention from the very beginning not to make payment and with this intention the cheque was given by the petitioner to the non-petitioner with the false representation that he was making the payment and cheque would be honoured. It is further argued that at this stage there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. The police has investigated the case on the report of the petitioner and after due investigation, a challan has been filed and the petitioner should be put to trial and the non-petitioner No. 2 and the prosecution should be given a fair and proper chance to prove the allegations.It is not necessary to scan the material on record minutely and meticulously. In support of this argument learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has referred Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 121 , in which it has been held that the charge cannot be quashed Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code on ground of inadequacy of evidence and at the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and the material on record was not required. This view has been followed by this Court in Amra Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 120 . In the facts of that case and the material on record it was laid down a strong suspicion may justify the framing of charge even if the scales of pan are even and the proper course is to frame the charge. At the stage of charge it has to be only seen that there are sufficient grounds to put the accused on trial and not to see whether there are sufficient ground for his conviction. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ramesh Chandra v. State, 1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 462 wherein that charges were quashed as there was no iota of evidence to frame the charges. In Ravinder Singh & Anr. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ramesh Chandra v. State, 1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 462 wherein that charges were quashed as there was no iota of evidence to frame the charges. In Ravinder Singh & Anr. v. Anand Sarup Goyal & State of Himachal Pradesh, 1985 (1) Himachal Pradesh (Short Note) 21 , it was laid down that the issue of a cheque which on presentation is dishonoured does not by itself constitute an offence Under section 420 Indian Penal Code because at the most it is a case of breach of promise by the person issuing the cheque. By issuing a cheque at the most there is representation by the drawer that the cheque shall be honoured on presentation. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been further placed on Vijay Khanna v. Jambo Electronics Co. Ltd. & Anr., 1984 (2) Crimes 495 (Delhi) , besides other situations where inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings can be exercised, one situation can be, where the allegations, made in the complaint/FIR and the statements of witnesses taken at their face value make out absolutely no case or do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. 8. I have anxiously considered the rival contentions and have perused the papers under challan against the petitioner. The powers under Sections 482 Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised in exceptional cases and ordinarily FIR or complaint or the charges are not quashed by this Court. But at the same time it is the duty of this Court to see that there is no abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. This Court should not hesitate to exercise its inherent powers Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code in appropriate cases where it is clearly shown that the material on record and the statements of the witnesses even if taken on its face value, do not absolutely make out the alleged offence and ingredients thereof and proceedings of the trial against the accused shall amount to abuse of machinery of law. Of course, in exercising its jurisdiction this Court should not launch an inquiry about the credibility of the evidence and also should not deal with the inadequacy of the evidence and the possibility of conviction on the material placed on record. Of course, in exercising its jurisdiction this Court should not launch an inquiry about the credibility of the evidence and also should not deal with the inadequacy of the evidence and the possibility of conviction on the material placed on record. Now it is established proposition of law that if there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or even if there are grounds of suspicion then instead of quashing the proceedings, the trial should proceed against the accused. 9. Keeping in view the above considerations, I have bestowed my attention to the rival contentions of the parties. It is not proposed in this case to go into the inadequacy of the material on record or its reliability. But without embarking upon such inquiry if I peruse the FIR and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and take them as they are in its entirety, I am clearly of the view that the essential ingredients of the offence Under section 420 Indian Penal Code are not made out and do not constitute such offence against the petitioner. The offence of cheating has been defined Under section 415 Indian Penal Code. To constitute an offence Under section 420 Indian Penal Code there should be a fraudulent or dishonest mis-representation and person should be induced to deliver any property to consent with any person shall retain any property or to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if that false representation would not have been made to him. Further the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person in body, mind, reputation or property. 10. In FIR it has been stated that the petitioner is the partner of M/s. Gopal Silk Mills, Gangapur. She gets the cloth of this Mill processed in the non-petitioner No. 2's factory. Further, the petitioner did not make the payment despite several reminders and correspondence. The petitioner gave a cheque on 14.1.1989 for Rs. 12,000/- towards the payments due and the cheque was dishonoured on 16.1.1989 and on second representation on 24.5.1989. Accordingly to the non-petitioner No. 2 the petitioner delivered the cheque dishonestly or fraudulently to cheat him and by not making the payment the petitioner has cheated him. The same version has been given in the statements of witnesses. 12,000/- towards the payments due and the cheque was dishonoured on 16.1.1989 and on second representation on 24.5.1989. Accordingly to the non-petitioner No. 2 the petitioner delivered the cheque dishonestly or fraudulently to cheat him and by not making the payment the petitioner has cheated him. The same version has been given in the statements of witnesses. The mere use of the words `dishonestly' and `fraudulently' is not sufficient unless it is shown that the intention of the petitioner was dishonest or fraudulent by issuing the cheque in question. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the ordinary course of business dealings, mere giving the cheque and its non-payment does not by itself constitute an offence of cheating. If the above allegations in the FIR and the statements of witnesses are considered as they are in its entirety even then the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating i.e. false representation dishonestly or fraudulently is not at all made out. Furthermore, there is no delivery of property by the non-petitioner No. 2 or giving of consent to retain any property or no inducement to do or omit to do any act on account of the delivery of the cheque in question. There is no allegation that the petitioner had no requisite balance in her account on the date of the delivery of the cheque. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a dispute of civil nature between the parties. Even if the cheque given towards the payment was dishonoured then it was merely a case of non payment of the dues and for which no criminal offence is made out for simply breach of promise. No one can be allowed to use the machinery or criminal law to pressurise to settle the civil dispute. 11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the cases referred by the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 do not in any manner help his case. I am clearly of the opinion that it is a fit case where this Court must exercise its inherent powers Under section 482 Criminal Prodedure Code to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice as on the face of it no offence Under section 420 Indian Penal Code is constituted against the petitioner. I am clearly of the opinion that it is a fit case where this Court must exercise its inherent powers Under section 482 Criminal Prodedure Code to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice as on the face of it no offence Under section 420 Indian Penal Code is constituted against the petitioner. If the trial is allowed to proceed against the petitioner, it would clearly amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The petitions, therefore, succeed. 12. In the result, both the above petitions are hereby accepted. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in State v. Shakuntala in Cr. Case No. 1035/89 under Section 420 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Bhilwara are hereby quashed.Petition Allowed *******