M. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS case arises out of an application filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. with a prayer for quashing the complaint filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim in Criminal Case No. 6/95 wherefrom summons have been issued and served upon the petitioners before us. ( 2 ) THE fact of the case in a nutshell is that the opposite party, respondent No. 1 in this proceeding, filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim against the petitioners before us. It was registered as Criminal Case No. 6/95. Learned Magistrate examined the complainant and issued summons upon the accused-petitioners. Summons was ordered for on 26-9-95 but was actually served on the accused/petitioners on 27-11-96. The accused persons made appearance before the learned Magistrate through their lawyer and thereafter they have filed the present petition in this Court on 14-5-1997. ( 3 ) THE fact as disclosed in the petition of complaint is that the accused persons were in possession of a costly piano at their residence in Darjeeling. The complainant approached the accused persons for sale of the said piano. He agreed to sell it at a price, ultimately bargained to Rs. 40,000/ -. The complainant had the idea of reselling the same to one of his friends at Calcutta with a profit of a few thousand rupees. It has been alleged that on 24-5-97, the accused persons came to Gangtok and collected 50% of the price so fixed from the complainant on the undertaking to deliver the piano at Gangtok within a week and to take payment of the balance of Rs. 20,000/ -. A receipt was granted by the accused petitioner No. 1 on receipt of the part payment of Rs. 20,000/- at Gangtok on 24-5-95 as aforesaid. It has been further alleged that the accused persons did not turn up with the piano. From the very start of the negotiation they had the idea of withholding delivery of the piano and extracting the money from the complainant. ( 4 ) THE case of the accused persons is a complete denial of all the allegations. The entire transaction and the story behind has been denied by the accused persons. After being summoned by the learned Magistrate under Sections 417/420/34, IPC, the accused have come before this Court under Section 482, Cr. ( 4 ) THE case of the accused persons is a complete denial of all the allegations. The entire transaction and the story behind has been denied by the accused persons. After being summoned by the learned Magistrate under Sections 417/420/34, IPC, the accused have come before this Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. It has been alleged that the story of the transaction is outright false. Moreover, no part of cause of action has taken place within the State of Sikkim. It has also been contended that no prima facie case was made out before the learned Magistrate and that complainant was the lone person to depose before the learned Magistrate. It has been pleaded that there is no ingredient of Section 415, IPC in the instant case. It has been alleged that the complainant has been set up by some Agarwala who are inimical towards the petitioners and who have been trying to keep the petitioners entangled with false criminal and civil cases. ( 5 ) THE complainant-respondent opposes the contention of the accused-petitioners on the ground that this petition in its present form is not maintainable. It is barred under the law of limitation and that this Court by exercise of any power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot quash the proceedings at this stage. It has been contended that the petitioners had all along the intention and motive to cheat the complainant. ( 6 ) IT is a settled principle that the Court by way of invoking power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. can quash a criminal proceeding in appropriate cases. While invoking the provision of Section 482, Cr. P. C. this Court must see if the allegations in the complaint, if accepted at their face value, constitute the offence as alleged. Decisions reported in AIR 1977 SC 1754, Sharda Prasad v. State of Bihar and 1982 0 Crlj 2266, Ramautar Choukhanv v. Hari Ram Todi, may be referred to in this context. it is pertinent to note that Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been introduced in the procedure code with a design to achieve a salutary public purpose. It should not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. it is pertinent to note that Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been introduced in the procedure code with a design to achieve a salutary public purpose. It should not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. Though we do not propose to attach any weight to the proposition that the complainant has been set up by a group of persons who are having bad relationship with the accused persons, we must see what the complaint or the initial evidence of the complainant discloses. Before we go for that we should deal with the technical objections raised on behalf of the complainant/respondent. ( 7 ) IT has been contended that though the complaint was filed sometime in August 1995 and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 26-9-95, the accused persons came before this Court only on 14-5-1997. It appears from the record that though cognizance was taken and summones were issued but actual service of summones did not take place before November 1996. We may note that the Limitation Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for any discretionary matter of the Court like that of Section 482, Cr. P. C. or 151/152, C. P. C. There are a few decisions which try to prescribe some time limit for approaching the Court with the prayer for exercise of such discretionary powers but the time limit as prescribed are neither static nor rigid. Reasonable should be the time in such cases. By allowing unreasonably long time, one might come up with a prayer for invoking the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P. C. at a belated stage of trial. We hold that the Court should not stick to a particular time limit but to other relevant factors to assess whether the delay in approaching the Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is reasonable or not. In the instant case only cognizance has been taken and summones have been issued. The case has not proceeded any further. Therefore, the delay in approaching this Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be said to be causing any harm to anybody or to the process of the Trial Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petition cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. The case has not proceeded any further. Therefore, the delay in approaching this Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be said to be causing any harm to anybody or to the process of the Trial Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petition cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. ( 8 ) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Magistrate should not have issued processes on the basis of the evidence or initial statement of the complainant only. It may be noted that Section 202 (2), Cr. P. C. does not impose any condition on the learned Magistrate to insist on examination of all the witnesses. Things are different in cases where the alleged offences are triable exclusively by the Court of Session. That has been provided in the proviso to Section 202 (2), Cr. P. C. though it is a settled provision of law, decision reported in 1990 0 Crlj 1110, Bata v. Anama Beheraj may be referred to in this context. ( 9 ) TO constitute an offence of cheating, there must be inducement and element of deceivability. We are aware of the story behind the case. If we take the same on its face value we would find that the accused petitioners agreed to sell his property against a consideration and that they took part payment of the same and, thereafter, did not deliver the goods as promised. Admittedly, the accused persons had the piano. It is not a case that they claimed to be owning the piano and negotiated for its sale while he did not actually possess any piano. The alleged dishonest intention must be at the time of making the promise. A decision reported in 1986 0 Crlj 1271, Hatiram Naik v. Surendra Kumar Mallik, may be referred to in this context. In the instant case we do not find anything on record from which dishonest intention of the accused persons at the time of entering into the agreement for sale could be presumed. Dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that promises were not fulfilled subsequently. ( 10 ) THERE is a broad distinction between breach of contract and cheating. The fact of the instant case at best constitutes something for which remedy is available in Civil Court. Dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that promises were not fulfilled subsequently. ( 10 ) THERE is a broad distinction between breach of contract and cheating. The fact of the instant case at best constitutes something for which remedy is available in Civil Court. In such a case one should not be allowed to drag the matter to the criminal Court. Where the party said to be aggrieved has an alternative remedy in a civil Court, the matter should not be allowed to be fought in a criminal Court. This view was expressed in AIR 1970 Patna 20 : (1970 Cri LJ 64), Bageswar v. Khandari Kaur and in 1959 Cri LJ 1216 : (AIR 1959 Tripura 40) Asad Ali Tasildar v. Anwar Ali. We are aware of some cases where one of the parties under a contract for sale of some goods did not want the contract to be concluded as the owner of goods backed out of the transaction as he had a better offer from some other person. Even in such cases criminal prosecution was not allowed. The case reported in 1975 Cri LJ 899 P. M. Natarajan v. K. C. Gupta is one of such cases. ( 11 ) THERE is another point worth mentioning. Transaction, as alleged, was with petitioner No. 1, but his wife (petitioner No. 2) has been entangled. This indicates some ill motive behind the scheme. ( 12 ) FROM the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the observations made above, the petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, East, in Criminal Case No. 6/95 is quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .