Judgment :- (1.) THE hearing arises out of an application being C.R.R. No. 630 of 2007 filed by the accused in Complaint Case No. 1140 c of 2006 under Section 420, 323, 506, 34 I.P.C for quashing the criminal proceedings. (2.) LEARNED lawyer for the petitioner has contended that learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences and erroneously issued process under Section 420, I.P.C though the said offence was not made out in the complainant. Learned lawyer for the petitioner has contended that the complainant brought this case contending that the accused secured interest free loan of Rs. 3,50,000/-from the complainant on the assurance of the complainant for repayment of the same within stipulated period but the complainant refused to repay the same. The complainant was abused and threatened with dire consequences and assaulted. Within the four corners of the petition of complaint there is nothing to show that the accused had fraudulent intention at the time when the complainant parted with the money. In other words, there is nothing to show that there was any intention on the part of the accused to deceive the complainant at the time when the loan was given to the accused. The complaint discloses a case of lending money to the accused by the complainant with a promise to pay and breach of such promise and there is nothing to show in the complaint that accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at me time the complainant parted with the money. There is no question of taking cognizance of offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C and it may at best amount to breach of contract or breach of promise which is a civil liability. Moreover, the accused repaid the loan amount by depositing the same with the bank. Thus the essential ingredients of cheating i.e. fraudulent or dishonest inducement are missing in this case and the entire criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. (3.) HE has placed his reliance upon the ruling reported in (2006)2 scc (Cr) page 49, 430; (2006)1 SCC (Cr) 746 ; 2000 SCC (Cr) at page 786 : 2000 C Cr LR (SC) 293, 2002 SCC (Cr) at page 129 and 2003 SCC (Cr) at page 703, 490 and 1121 : 2003 C Cr LR (SC) 694. (3.) HE has placed his reliance upon the ruling reported in (2006)2 scc (Cr) page 49, 430; (2006)1 SCC (Cr) 746 ; 2000 SCC (Cr) at page 786 : 2000 C Cr LR (SC) 293, 2002 SCC (Cr) at page 129 and 2003 SCC (Cr) at page 703, 490 and 1121 : 2003 C Cr LR (SC) 694. (4.) LEARNED lawyer for the respondent has contended that the petition of complaint discloses offences under Section 420, 323, 506 I.P.C. and cognizance was rightly taken and process was rightly issued. He has further contended that the petition of complaint clearly discloses that there was inducement on the part of the accused leading the complainant to part with the money and the accused instead of repaying the money parted with by the complainant assaulted and threatened the complainant with dire consequences so that the complainant could not make demand for such amount. The accused approached the complainant for loan and complainant gave loan, as there was good relationship between the parties. He-further contends that he further draws attention of the Court to Section 415 illustration (F) of the Indian Penal code where it has been embodied that A intentionally deceived Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonest induced Z to lend him money A not intending to repaid it. A cheats. Here the accused intentionally deceived the complainant into a belief that they meant to repay any money that the complainant might lend to accused No. 1 and thereby dishonestly induced the complainant to lend the complainant No. 1 money. The accused had no intention to repay the sum. The accused thus cheats the complainant. Learned lawyer for the respondent has further contended that even if it assumed that the petition of complaint lacks any ingredient of the offence under Section 420, I.P.C then also that is not sufficient for quashing the proceedings at this initial stage. There will be trial of the case and the complainant will have an opportunity to adduce the evidence and to prove all the ingredients of the offence of cheating and so at this stage the prosecution cannot be quashed. There will be trial of the case and the complainant will have an opportunity to adduce the evidence and to prove all the ingredients of the offence of cheating and so at this stage the prosecution cannot be quashed. Learned lawyer for the respondent contended that where factual foundation of the offence have been laid down in the complaint the high Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceeding merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated. (5.) LEARNED lawyer for the respondent has further contended that even if it is assumed not admitted that the case under Section 420, I.P.C is not made out in the petition of complaint still then the criminal proceeding can be quashed as the offences under Section 506 and 323, I.P.C have been made out. The criminal case started against the accused should be allowed to reach its culmination and it should not be quashed at this stage. (6.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has placed his reliance upon the ruling reported in (1999)1 All India Criminal Law reporter page 732 Supreme court: 1999 C Cr LR (SC) 224, (1993)3 Supreme Court Cases at page 54 : 1999 C Cr LR (SC) 108, (2007)1 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter Supreme court at page 891, 2001 (4) All India Criminal Law Reporter at page 333, (1991)1 Crimes 104 Supreme Court. (7.) IN the case reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cr) at page 703 it has been laid down that a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In other words "mens rea on the part of the accused must be established before he can be convicted of an offence of cheating. In order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered. Unless the complaint showed that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the complainant parted with the money, it would not amount to an offence under section 420, I.P.C and it may only amount to breach of contract. Unless the complaint showed that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the complainant parted with the money, it would not amount to an offence under section 420, I.P.C and it may only amount to breach of contract. (8.) IN the ruling reported in (2006)2 Supreme Court Cases (Cr) at page 49 it has been laid down that it is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception pleaded at the very inception. If the intention to cheat developed later on, the same would not amount to cheating. (9.) IN the ruling reported in 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Cr) at page 786 it has been held that the intention is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed. (10.) IN the ruling reported in 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cr) at page 129 it has been laid down that it is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise to show that he committed an act of cheating. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating, (11.) IN the case reported in (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases at page 54 it has been laid down that the High Court should not, while exercising power under Section 402 of the Code, usurp the jurisdiction of the trial Court. The power under Section 482 of the Code has been vested in the High Court to quash a prosecution which amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. But that power cannot be exercised by the High Court to hold a parallel trial, only on basis of the statements and documents collected during investigation or inquiry, for purpose of expressing an opinion whether the accused concerned is likely to be punished if the trial is allowed to proceed. But that power cannot be exercised by the High Court to hold a parallel trial, only on basis of the statements and documents collected during investigation or inquiry, for purpose of expressing an opinion whether the accused concerned is likely to be punished if the trial is allowed to proceed. (12.) IN the case reported in (1999)1 Crimes 104 (SC) it has been held that the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. It is too well settled that the first information, report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence and, therefore, while, exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the Court and at that stage it is not possible for the Court to shift the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other. The High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold of thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under section 482 or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be and allow the law to take its own course. Such power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised only when the Court is of the opinion that otherwise there will be gross miscarriage of justice. Social stability and order is required to be regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against the society as a whole. (13.) IN the case reported in (2007)1 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter Supreme Court at page 391 it has been held that the complaint has to be read as a whole. Social stability and order is required to be regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against the society as a whole. (13.) IN the case reported in (2007)1 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter Supreme Court at page 391 it has been held that the complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. (14.) IN the case reported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cr) at page 353 : 2004 C Cr LR (SC) 127 it has been laid down that exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code is an exception not the rule in inherent jurisdiction though wide has to be exercised sparingly carefully and with caution. (15.) IN the ruling reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court at page 1216 in the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. it was held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at the stage of investigation. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients hove not boon stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases), the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (16.) IN the ruling reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court at page 301 the case was that the appellant intending to start business gave in full faith a large amount to respondents. (16.) IN the ruling reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court at page 301 the case was that the appellant intending to start business gave in full faith a large amount to respondents. Respondents started business in their own name and refused to render accounts or return money. It was 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. The appellant also did not allege the respondents making any representation to him for parting with the money. Mere fact that they did not abide by their commitment as to starting of the business in complainants name as agreed to would not fasten them with criminal liability. (17.) IT appears from the reading of the petition of complaint that due to poor financial condition and sick condition of the business of accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 approached the complainant for loan of Rs. 3,50,000/-and the said accused secured loan on the assurance of the accused that accused No. 1 will repay the said loan within stipulated period agreed mentioned in the money receipts and subsequently on demand the accused assaulted the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. The petition of complaint makes out a case of payment of interest free loan with promise to pay the same within the stipulated time and failure of the accused to repay the said loan within the stipulated time and even after that. It does not appear that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time when the complainant parted with money. The accused did not deny that the loan was received. The allegations at best make out a case of breach of contract or promise and the same do not bring the case within the mischief of Section 420, I.P.C. The liability for payment of the amount appears to be civil rather than criminal liability. The accused did not deny that the loan was received. The allegations at best make out a case of breach of contract or promise and the same do not bring the case within the mischief of Section 420, I.P.C. The liability for payment of the amount appears to be civil rather than criminal liability. (18.) IT is true that learned lawyer for the respondent has contended in reply to the contention of the learned lawyer for the petitioner that no payment of the loan amount has been made and the alleged deposit has not been made in the name of the petitioner but one Rubi Tewari and annexure to the petition cannot be considered. The said contention of the learned lawyer for the respondent as payment of loan cannot be considered at this stage and that may be left for consideration during trial and at this stage the petition of complaint coupled with initial ejahar do not make out case under Section 420, I.P.C and it will never be in the interest of justice to ask the petitioners to undergo the anxiety of facing criminal trial with the charge of 420, I.P.C and continuance of the said case under Section 420, I.P.C is an abuse of process of Court. So the criminal prosecution brought against the accused-petitioner under Section 420, I.P.C cannot be permitted to continue. Of course, at this stage, the petition of complaint discloses offence under Sections 323, 506 parts 1 I.P.C and the case for such offences shall continue. In the circumstances, the criminal prosecution brought against the petitioners do continue for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 part 1 and the same cannot continue for the offence punishable under Section 420, I.P.C. The instant application stands disposed of accordingly.