Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition under Sec. 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the RR in Kotwali (Hindpiri) P.S. Case No. 540 of 1994 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3102 of 1994 under Secs. 406/420/120/34 I.P.C. against the accused petitioners. 2. The Opposite Party No.2, Ramesh Narayan Singh filed a complaint petition before the C.J.M. Ranchi, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 95 of 1994, but afterwards the C.J.M. forwarded the same to the police for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr. P.C vide his order dated 16-8-1994. As per the complaint filed by the Opposite Party No.2, which has been subsequently registered as FIR. There are three sets of named accused persons. The accused persons arrayed are B Group and C Group are the petitioners in this case. In short the case of the O.P. No.2 Complainant Informant is that after retirement from H. E. C., he decided to purchase a trekker from Accused Nos. 1 to 4 who were arrayed as in the A Group (who are not the petitioners) and met for financing him in the process of hire purchase of the trekker. According to the informant, as per advise of the accused in A group, he deposited the demand draft of Rs. 81,000 in favour of B.C.L. Financial Investment Ltd. (arrayed as accused in Group B) and as per demand made by accused in Group-A, he had also produced guarantor and sureties as stood against the complainant. 3. According to the complainant, as contained in Annexure-II of the complaint, the vehicle was made available to the complainant on 21-10-1993 after about one and half month on depositing of the demand draft, but when he wanted to know from the accused in Group-A about the financing process being made, it was found the accused in Group-C entered into the matter as the demand draft was endorsed in the name of Todi Investment. 4. As per the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused in Group-B and C, no case could be made out against them by the complainant. Even on his own admission, he had no privity of contract with the petitioners, all his commitments were with accused in Group-A. However, factual position remains that the complainant had entered into an agreement with Todi Investment and as such Todi Investment pressed on the complainant for payment of installment as per hire purchased agreement. Even on his own admission, he had no privity of contract with the petitioners, all his commitments were with accused in Group-A. However, factual position remains that the complainant had entered into an agreement with Todi Investment and as such Todi Investment pressed on the complainant for payment of installment as per hire purchased agreement. The agreement between the complainant and the Todi Investment has been totally denied by the complainant. 5. In such position, on the basis of admissions made by the complainant in his complaint petition, when there is no privity of contract with the petitioners i.e. Group-B and C, there cannot be any attraction of cheating or breach of trust as contemplated under Secs. 420 and 406 of the I. P. C. It further appears that the petitioner- entrusted with the money with the accused in Group A for getting financing him for purchasing a trekker, which was made available to the complainant and according to the hire purchase agreement, he is definitely to pay to the person with whom he had made agreement. If it is in agreement with the accused at Group-A or accused in Group-C whatever might be. There is no breach of trust as the materials for which the money has been given has already been available to the complainant as per his admission itself. Moreover, it appears that only because the Financiers are pressing for getting monthly installment of the hire purchase agreement, the complainant has filed this case to get himself absolved from the liability of the payment of monthly installments. He is to pay to the person with whom he had an agreement and if there is any internal arrangement between the different groups of the accused persons, the matter would be settled amongst themselves. The complainant cannot be concerned with it. But, the fact remains that the FIR/ complaint petition itself does not reveal any penal provision attracted under the IPC against the petitioners. 6. In a case for quashing of FIR, the Courts are very slow to interfere, but when it is found that civil matters are being motivated brought into the criminal fold then the Court cannot remain a silent spectator and definitely would come up to stop the abuse of process of law. 6. In a case for quashing of FIR, the Courts are very slow to interfere, but when it is found that civil matters are being motivated brought into the criminal fold then the Court cannot remain a silent spectator and definitely would come up to stop the abuse of process of law. FIR as whole is not proper to be quashed and practically quashing of FIR would not be possible when even if FIR is quashed, it can be substituted by another one. The only thing is necessary to stop investigation for saving the innocent persons from being harassed by the abuse of the process of law. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, no criminal case could be made out against the petitioners and as such the investigation against them is required to be stopped. 8. In the circumstances, this quashing petition is allowed. Officer-in-charge, Kotwali (Hindpiri) Police Station is hereby directed to stop investigation against the above-named petitioner alone in connection with P.S. Case No. 540/94, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3102/94.