ORDER 1. Heard the parties. 2. There are two petitioners in this application who are being prosecuted for allegedly committing offence punishable under section 406 I.P.C. pursuant to complaint filed by the complainant Shyam Singh of village Vehuara, P.S. Patepur in the district of Vaishali. 3. The complainant in the complaint petition states that the petitioners, who are residents of Gali Nawabganj in the district of Bareli (U.P.), are old friends of the complainant. On 10th October, 1995 the petitioners visited the residence of the complainant and revealed that during the journey by train the petitioners have lost their brief-case and money which they were carrying. The petitioners demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for purchase of business articles. The petitioners are traders. The complainant gave Rs.8000/- and some clothes for children worth Rs.600/- The complainant after one week went to the residence of the petitioners at Bareli and demanded the money. The petitioners asked for some time to repay the loan. The petitioners, however, failed to return the money to the complainant and that is why the complainant filed a complaint to issue processes to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that according to the complaint petition, loan of Rs.8000/- was advanced to the petitioners and they failed to repay the same. There is no question of entrustment. Learned counsel for the opposite party relying on 1996 (1) S.C.C. 542 , submitted that it is not a fit case for quashing the proceeding and it cannot be said that the petitioners have not committed any offence. 5. In Hari Prasad Chamaria vs. Bishun Kumar Surekha A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 301 in which facts of the case were that the appellant before the Supreme Court intending to start business gave in full faith a large amount to the respondents accused persons for starting business. The accused started business in their own name and refused to render the account and return money. The Supreme Court held that even assuming prima facie all the allegations in the complaint to be true they merely amount to a breach of contract and could not give rise to criminal prosecution. The accused started business in their own name and refused to render the account and return money. The Supreme Court held that even assuming prima facie all the allegations in the complaint to be true they merely amount to a breach of contract and could not give rise to criminal prosecution. There was nothing in the complaint to show that the respondents had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the appellant parted with the money nor did the complaint indicate that the respondents had induced the appellant to pay them the amount parted with. It was held that fact that they did not abide by their commitment as to starting of the business in complainant's name as agreed to would not fasten them with criminal liability. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of this Court quashing the criminal proceeding. 6. The present case is on worse footing. Admittedly, the complainant only advanced a loan to the petitioners which the petitioners refused to return. It is not even a case of contract. There is no averment that the complainant was made to part with the property with dishonest intention or that the complainant was induced to part with any of the contract. This is a case clearly of civil liability. The complainant was ill-advised to file the complaint instead of suit to recover the amount. Since no offence prima facie is made out under section 406 IPC, the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the court. 7. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire proceedings against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 1276/95 (Trial No. 652/96) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur is hereby quashed.