JUDGMENT This petition has been filed for quashing case No. C 450 of 1996 pending in the Court of Second Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Howrah. 2. The opposite party No. 1, filed a petition of complaint in the Court below alleging that he is a renowned businessman and deals in dyes and chemicals. The petitioners and opposite party No.1 were on visiting terms and he had developed intimacy with opposite party No.1. The petitioners approached opposite party No.1 to run their business styled as Messrs. Anand & Company. There was an oral agreement and the following terms were accepted by petitioners. (i) Opposite party No.1 would supply dyes and chemicals and other raw-materials to Messrs. Anand & Co., and the petitioners would process hosiery fabrics in their factory; (ii) That the opposite party No.1 alone shall collect all the products of Messrs. Anand & Company; (iii) The opposite party No.1 will be paid Rs. 2,000/- per month on account of conveyance charges 25 per cent annual net of profit and 10 per cent of the processing bills. 3. Opposite party No.1 supplied materials as listed in Schedule ‘A’ of the petition of complaint in accordance with the agreement. 4. The petitioners processed the fabrics of firms listed in para 14 of the petition of complaint but did not pay the share of the complainant to him. The opposite party No.1 also supplied materials worth Rs. 25,12,664/- through different dealers from time to time. The petitioners declined to pay the dues to the suppliers of raw-materials for which the order was placed by the complainant. In January 1996, the petitioners dispossessed the complainant from the factory and took control over the same. The complainant acted upon the dishonest inducement and parted with a huge sum of money and is indebted to various parties on account of the goods supplied to the petitioners' factory. Hence petitioners have committed the offences of criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and cheating. 5. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 28th June, 1996 found that offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. alone in made out. Process was issued. Hence this petition. 6. Hence petitioners have committed the offences of criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and cheating. 5. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 28th June, 1996 found that offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. alone in made out. Process was issued. Hence this petition. 6. It has been laid down by the apex Court in case of (1) State of Kerala v. K. Vareed Pillay, AIR 1973 SC 326 that to hold a person guilty of the offence of, cheating, it must be shown that the 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 fulfil his promise. The present case clearly appears to be a civil dispute because it is a question of accounting and recovery of the balance due. The contention that the opposite party No.1 was in possession of the factory and has been dispossessed, appears to be contradictory on the fact of plea of entrustment in the petition of complaint. In any view of the matter the criminal prosecution is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed and the prosecution is quashed.