Judgment : This is an application filed by the petitioner 2nd accused under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.900 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur. .2. The facts leading to the filing of this application are as follows: .The petitioner is the owner of Jayavel Sago Factory at Attur in Saiem District Manufacturing starch and sago. The petitioner purchases tapioca roots for manufacturing starch and sago. Between from 12. 1994 to 112. 1994 he purchased Tapioca roots from one Sebastian of No.74 Krishnapuram, Attur Taluk and paid the sum of Rs.55,734 to him for the cost of tapioca roots of five lorries. The petitioner never went to Perambalur village for purchase of tapioca roots. He had no transaction with one Govindan. On 27. 1995 he came to know that one Govindan of Psumbalur village came to the petitioner sago mill and enquired about the said Sebastian and told the petitioner that he supplied tapioca roots to Sebeastian and did not receive payment for the same. The petitioner narrated to Govindan that he paid all the amount viz., Rs.55,734 to Sebastian and settled the transaction. In the month of September a case had been filed by the said Govindan against Sebastian (A-1) and the petitioner (A-2) on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur . The Judicial Magistrate, directed the respondent police under Sec.156(3) to register a case and investigate and file a report. The respondent police registered F.I.R. in Crime No.433 of 1995 against Sebastian (A1) and the petitioner (A-2) under Secs.406, 417, 420 of I.P.C, and then filed the charge sheet. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner by name Jayavel Naicker, who is A-2 in the case in C.C.No.900 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate at Perambalur, has nothing to do with Sebasfian who purchased tapioca roots from the complainant by name Govindan, and it is only a civil dispute, and the case has been filed as against the petitioner/A-2 to harass him to get the amount from him by the complainant, and no case is made out as against the petitioner/A-2 and in those circumstances the proceedings in C.CNo.900 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate at Perambalur should be quashed. .4. .4. In support of the above contention the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.Balasubramaniam placed reliance on the decision of out High Court reported in P.P.Alikoya Proprietor Noble Lemon Company v. P. Murugan Proprietor Kalaimagal Vegetable Commission Mundy New Market, Subramaniapuram, Palani P.O., 1994 T.N.L.J:340, The 1st accused in this case by one Sebastian is a resident of Krishnapuram village within the jurisdiction of Thambampatti police and the petitioner/ A-2 by name Jayavel Naicker is a resident of Attur within the jurisdiction of Attur P.S. and the complainant by name Govindan is a resident of Perambalur village. Thus these three persons are residing in different places and in different villages. While so the complainant would state in the complaint given to the Magistrate that he purchased the tapioca roots from the persons mentioned in the complaint between 12. 1994 to 112. 1994 about 5 loads and sent the same to the mill of the petitioner/A-2 at Attur and both the accused viz., Sebastian and the petitioner/A-2 Jayavel Naicker promised to pay the price of tapioca at Perambalur village, and when the complainant asked them to pay the money, they promised to pay the same, and he believed their words and kept quiet for time, and the thereafter against both the accused came to the complainant on 27. 1995 and asked the complainant to supply further load of tapioca, and when the complainant demanded the payment of tapioca supplied earlier, they denied the same and stated that he did not supply tapioca and not liable to pay any amount, and when questioned further by the complainant as how they can cheat him and they replied to collect the same if that is so, and against the complainant went to the accused 1 and 2 on 30.8 1995 and demanded to pay the cost of the tapioca supplied earlier and they were evading the payment for the same. 5. On those allegations a complaint was given on 38. 1995 to the learned Magistrate who forwarded the same to the police for investigation and there upon the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.433 of 1995 under Secs.417, 420 and 406 of I.P.C. on 29. 1995 and after investigation the respondent police laid the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate at Perambalur in C.C.No.900 of 1996. 6. 1995 to the learned Magistrate who forwarded the same to the police for investigation and there upon the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.433 of 1995 under Secs.417, 420 and 406 of I.P.C. on 29. 1995 and after investigation the respondent police laid the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate at Perambalur in C.C.No.900 of 1996. 6. The statement of the complainant by name Govindan recorded by the respondent police under Sec.161 of Crl.P.C. reads as follows in Tamil: 7. Thus a reading of the statement of the complainant would disclose that he was introduced to the accused No.1 Sebastian and Jayagopal Naicker (A-2) by one Vellaiyan to supply tapioca roots to them and so the complainant purchased tapioca roots from Mani. Maruthamuthu and Thanavelu and supplied five loads of tapioca and sent the same to the mill or Jayavel Naicker (petitioner/A-2);and he demanded the money for the said good, and both the accused stated that they would not cheat him and they would pay the amount shortly, and he believed their words and thereafter again on 27. 1904 they came once again to supply tapioca roots load, and at that time the complainant demanded the payment of Rs.55,734 and said to them that on payment of the same he would supply further loads of roots, and both the accused denied the supply of earlier tapioca roots and denied their liability for which the complainant stated that they cost chest like this. These are the allegations both in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the complainant recorded under Sec.161 of Crl.P.C. and a fair reading of the complaint given by the complainant before the trial Magistrate which was later registered as F.I.R. by the respondent police and the statement of the complainant recorded under Sec.161 of Crl.P.C. would reveals that the allegations in the complaint either by itself or read along with the statement under Sec.161 of Crl.P.C. did not disclose, an offence under Sec.420 of I.P.C., as there was no material showing that the petitioner/ A-2 either had the dishonest or fraudulent intention to deceive the complainant. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of Kerala v. A.P.Pillai, A.I.R. 1973 B.C. 326 laid down that to held a person guilty of the offence of cheating under Sec.420 of I.P.C. it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making a promise and such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the accused could not subsequently fulfil the promise. In the offence of cheating there are two elements viz., deception and dishonest inducement to do or commit to do something. Even assuming that the petitioner/A-2 deceived the complainant and he was dishonest mere dishonesty is not a criminal offence. The crux of the question is whether the complainant was induced by dishonest deception of the petrtioner/A-2 to supply tapioca roots and later denied the payment of the same. A broken promise is not a criminal offence though it may amount to certain business relation discreditable behaviour. It is significant to note that not with standing the failure to pay the price of tapioca roots for the alleged supply of 5 loads of tapioca earlier by the complainant to the accused in this case it is stated both in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the complainant recorded under Sec.161 of Crl.P.C. that the accused met the complainant on 2S.7.1994 and asked him to supply further load of tapioca roots. Such version as spoken to by the complainant and recorded by the police under Sec.161 of Crl.P.C. is inherently improbable because if there was dishonest intention to cheat the complainant by the above accused, then they would not have approached the complainant once again for the supply of tapioca foots especially when they failed to pay the amount for the earlier supply of tapioca roots. So the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Sec.420 of I.P.C. are absent in the complaint or in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the complainant recorded under Sec.161 of Crl.P.C. At the best the alleged acts on the accused after receiving the supply or tapioca and failure to pay the cost of the same would amount to breach of promise or breach of agreement, and it is only a civil dispute. In the absence of any material either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the complainant recorded under Sec.161 of Crl.P.C. to hold thai there was intention to deceive on the part of the petitioner, proceedings further with the investigation in this case would not serve any purpose. Evidently there is nothing in the complaint or in the statement of the complainant recorded under Sec. 161 of Crl.P.C. to show that the petitioner/A-2 had either dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time when the complainant parted away with the goods. So it is one of the rarest or rare cases, and it only a civil dispute between the parties, and so this is a fit case where the proceedings should be quashed as regards the petitioner/A-2 by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case I am to held that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in this case, and so the proceedings in C.C.No.900 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate at Perambalur so far as the petitioner A2 is concerned are to be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C, and 1 answer the point accordingly. 9. In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.900 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate at Perambalur in so far as the petitioner/A-2 is concerned are quashed.