( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 cr. P. C. , to quash the proceedings in c. C. No. 322 of 2004 on the file of the XII additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad, which was registered under sections 420, 406 and 468 IPC. ( 2 ) THE allegations in the complaint are that on 5-1-2004. L. W. 1 lodged a complaint alleging that the accused approached L. Ws. 1 and 2 during October, 2003 in Hyderabad and dishonestly induced them to pay an amount of Rs. 47 lakhs by misrepresenting himself as he had good contacts and influence in India and abroad and by promising that he provide. L. W. 1 job work worth Rs. 90 crores, that his firm M/s. Ameya Systems entered a memorandum of understanding with Satyam computer Services Ltd. and LIC of India to execute data conversion project, etc. , in joint with M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. , a project worth Rs. 90 crores, that L. W. 1 remitted Rs. 47 lakhs into the Bank account of the accused, that the accused gave a cheque for Rs. 5 crores bearing No. 612926, dated 29-12-2003 drawn in favour of L. W. 1 to keep L. W. 1 in good faith and belief, that later the accused failed to provide the said projects and on verification it was found that accused breached the trust of L. W. 1, cheated him to a tune of Rs. 17 lakhs by fraudulently creating and showing forged document allegedly existed between accused and satyam Computer Services Ltd. , as LIC of india. Hence L. W. 1 requested to take necessary legal action against the accused. 17 lakhs by fraudulently creating and showing forged document allegedly existed between accused and satyam Computer Services Ltd. , as LIC of india. Hence L. W. 1 requested to take necessary legal action against the accused. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not misrepresented to the effect that he was entered into Memorandum of understanding with Satyam Computers and if that fact has been stated to the complainant, the same should have been found place in the Joint venture Agreement entered into between the accused and the de facto complainant on 28-11-2003, that the petitioner is disputing such statement, that the alleged copy of agreement is fabricated by the de facto complainant himself and it is purely a commercial transaction which culminates the criminal prosecution so as to score the dispute so that the de facto complainant would get back the amount, that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken as true and correct, they do not make out prima facie case of the offences under Sections 420,406 and 468, that there is no allegation that the accused has entertained dishonest intention at the time of making promise and therefore, it is nothing but abuse of process of Court. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel forthe petitioner relied on a decision reported in Minnu Kumari v. State of Bihar 2006 (3) ALT (Crl.) 256 (SC) = 2006 (7) SCJ 869 = (2006) 4 SCC 359 . wherein it was held as follows: "authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers Court would be justified to quash any proceedings if it finds that initiation/ continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. " ( 5 ) HE also relied on another decision reported in S. W. Palanirkarv. State of Bihar 2002 (1)ALT (Crl.)219 (SC) = (2002)lscc241. " ( 5 ) HE also relied on another decision reported in S. W. Palanirkarv. State of Bihar 2002 (1)ALT (Crl.)219 (SC) = (2002)lscc241. wherein it was held as follows: "merely because there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, that cannot prevent criminal prosecution against the accused if an act constituting a criminal offence is made out even prima facie. " ( 6 ) HE further relied on a decision reported in Hira Lal Harilal Bhagawati v. CB 2003 (2) ALT (Crl.)142 (SC) = (2003) 3 SCC 257. , wherein it was held as follows: "jurisdiction under Section 482 of the code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the high Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. The Supreme Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the high Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. " ( 7 ) FROM the above decisions, it is clear that the powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has to be exercised with great care and caution. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High court is not to examine the matter superficially. For the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused has fraudulently and with dishonest intention made false promise or making representation. Mere failure to keep up the promise does not give rise to a criminal cause of action and that the criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether the prima facie case has been made out for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 ipc. ( 8 ) IT is alleged in the complaint that the de facto complainant paid Rs. 47 lakhs by remitting Rs. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether the prima facie case has been made out for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 ipc. ( 8 ) IT is alleged in the complaint that the de facto complainant paid Rs. 47 lakhs by remitting Rs. 35 lakhs into the account of the accused with Standard Chartered Bank and rs. 12 lakhs into the account of the accused firm with ICICI Bank. A Memorandum of undertaking was entered into between the de facto complainant and the accused which inter alia provides that the accused agrees to provide regular business of 500 systems per shift for the next 5 years and for regular supply of IT. related projects which assigned the work to the de facto complainant after due consultation with the clients based on the terms and conditions. A fraudulent dishonest intention is locked up in the mind of the accused person. Therefore, it may not be possible for the complainant to adduce or produce material with regard to criminal intention of the accused which was entertained at the time of entering into agreement. Law permits that such dishonest intention can be gathered from the circumstances of the case. If a person makes a false promise or conceal a material fact is a deception within the meaning of explanation to Section 415 I PC. Concealment of fact as alleged by the complainant in this case is that the accused firm entered into Memorandum of understanding with Satyam Computers services Ltd. , and LIC of India to execute data conversion project etc. , in joint with satyam Computers Services Ltd. , a project worth Rs. 90crores, that LW. 1 remitted Rs. 47 lakhs to the bank account of the accused. No doubt the accused gave a cheque for Rs. 5 crores drawn in favour of L. W. 1 as a security. Later the accused failed to provide said project and on verification it was found that the accused breached the trust of L. W. 1 and cheated him to a tune of Rs. 17 lakhs by fraudulently creating forged documents allegedly existing between the accused and satyam Computers Services Ltd. , and LIC of india. Later the accused failed to provide said project and on verification it was found that the accused breached the trust of L. W. 1 and cheated him to a tune of Rs. 17 lakhs by fraudulently creating forged documents allegedly existing between the accused and satyam Computers Services Ltd. , and LIC of india. During the course of investigation police examined the officials of Satyam Computers and also LIC of India and came to the conclusion about non-existence of memorandum of understanding of Satyam computers and LIC of India with the accused. The charge sheet allegations also disclose that L. W. 1 received Fax copy of Memorandum of understanding and issued a work allegedly existing among the accused and Satyam computers and LIC of India. That document was found to be fake and forged. Since the original was not traced, police did not file any charge sheet for the offence under section 468 IPC. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that Memorandum of understanding was fabricated by the complainant himself, but the same cannot be accepted because it is a question of fact to be decided basing on the material available on record. Prima facie complainant allegations would go to show that the accused by making false promise persuaded L. W. 1 to enter into joint venture agreement giving him an impression that he had a good contact and influence in India and Abroad and also he entered into Memorandum of understanding with Satyam Computers Services Ltd. , and lic of India. When there is no such agreement, it is dishonest concealment of fact, which is a deception. If he had no criminal intention at the time of making the promise, there is no need for him to state a fact, which is not in existence. So from the allegations, prima facie case has been made out for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Therefore, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal petition is dismissed. Any observations in this criminal petition made are only for the purpose of disposal of the criminal petition and uninfluenced by any observations made in this criminal petition, the trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. Therefore, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal petition is dismissed. Any observations in this criminal petition made are only for the purpose of disposal of the criminal petition and uninfluenced by any observations made in this criminal petition, the trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. It is open for the petitioner to avail all the remedies that are available under the law including a petition for his discharge before the trial Court.