Judgment Sadanand Mukherjee, J. 1. This is an application for quashing the entire proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 7.3.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1475/2002 filed by Opposite Party No. 2, namely, M/S Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. and order was passed for issuance of summons against the petitioner. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 is the Company under the Companies Act and is being represented through its Branch Incharge who is competent to file and contest the complaint case on behalf of the Company Petitioner No. 1, who is accused No. 1 in the present case approached the complainant (O.P. 2002) for financing one Ashok Leyland Super passenger Carrier vehicle. The complainant was assured by the accused persons, including petitioners No. 2 and 3 that the complainants money along with upto date interest shall be returned to the complainant always within the stipulated period. The accused persons, who are petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous case, further assured that the complainant may inspect the financed vehicle any time if so desired and that in case there was any default in payment, the complainant may repossess the financed vehicle and take appropriate steps to recover the dues. Believing the assurances of the accused persons, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 agreed to finance one Ashok Leyland Truck to petitioner No. 1. 3. Both parties entered into a Hire-purchases agreement on 8.5.1999 for hire-purchase of one Ashok Leyland Truck. It was further agreed that they shall be paying the monthly instalments of hire-charges on or before the due date and accordingly the petitioner No. 1 was required to pay an aggregate amount of Rs. 4,34,690/-. Initially regular payments were made by the petitioners but later-on petitioner No. 1 became irregular in payment and finally stopped making any payments and thus a total sum of Rs. 4,60,754/ was due to be paid by the accused persons(petitioners) to the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 excluding future dues. 4. The complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 requested the petitioners many times for payment of money but the petitioners did not do so. The complainant/ Opposite Party No. 2 searched for the vehicle financed to the petitioners but the same is traceless. 4,60,754/ was due to be paid by the accused persons(petitioners) to the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 excluding future dues. 4. The complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 requested the petitioners many times for payment of money but the petitioners did not do so. The complainant/ Opposite Party No. 2 searched for the vehicle financed to the petitioners but the same is traceless. The complainant/opposite Party No. 2 sent legal notices to the petitioners demanding payment of money but the petitioners did not pay any money to the Opposite Party No. 2. 5. The hire-purchase agreement was referred to Arbitrator and accordingly vide order dated 15.7.2000 in Miscellaneous base No. 548 of 2002 (Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. V/s. Mithila Minority and Ors.) the learned bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta presided over by Sri R. K. Dey, passed an order for appointment of receiver for the purpose of taking possession of the vehicle, When the complainant/Opposite party took steps for repossessing the vehicle, the petitioners caused the vehicle disappeared making repossession of the vehicle impossible. The petitioners caused wrongful loss to the opposite Party No. 2. 6. That the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna took cognizance under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. and ordered for issuance of summons against the accused persons. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the very acts of the complainant for appointing an arbitrator in the matter and of moving the Civil Court, Kolkata in the matter and the Civil Courts passing same order in the matter fully confirms that the matter is purely of civil nature and no criminal case is made out. It is further submitted that out of the total amount of Rs. 4,34,690/-, a sum of Rs. 1,23,537.80 Paise was paid by the borrower accused in as initial payment and that is the amount of interest and the financers portion is only 3,11,150.20 Paise and these are obvious from the deed of agreement itself but the prosecution has totally concealed and suppressed it. A detailed list has been given stating about payment of Rs. 4,00,000.00 on each dates from 3.5.1999 to 8.2.2001. A detailed list has been given stating about payment of Rs. 4,00,000.00 on each dates from 3.5.1999 to 8.2.2001. After the payment made in October, 1995, the petitioners requested the financer to recalculate the amount of interest as per understanding and agreement since as against the agreed period of two years for repayment the loan was repaid in less than 6 months and that entitled the petitioners to get concession in interest. After more than a year the financer asked the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 so that the total repayment becomes Rs. 4,00,000/-and after final calculation the extra payment would be returned. The petitioners accordingly deposited Rs. 30,000.00 on 8.2.2001 and made a total repayment of Rs. 4,00,000/-. 8. The case of the petitioners further is that while the petitioners were waiting to get back their extra money paid to the financer instead they were served with summons from the Court showing that they have been made accused in a case under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the matter of hire-purchase of vehicle. The case of the petitioners further is that prosecution has filed a totally false case only to humiliate and harass the petitioners in a fabricated matter and the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. are not made out. On behalf of the petitioners reliance has been placed on 1998(3) PLJR page-322-323 wherein and whereunder it was held that since there is an agreement between the parties the complainant has civil remedy and initiation of criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court. The aforesaid case also arises out of hire purchase agreement of a vehicle. In the aforesaid case reliance has been placed on A.I.R. 1979 SC page 850 and 1993(2) B.L.J. 235 . Hon ble Single Judge of this Court while discussing the aforesaid decision found that when there was an agreement, launching of a criminal prosecution shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. On behalf of the petitioner -s 1993(2) B.L.J. 235 also has been cited in which also a decision of the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1979 SC 8501 has been relied on. The aforesaid case also relates to hire-purchase agreement. However, the matter related to default on the part of the hire-purchaser in making payment of instalment. On behalf of the petitioner -s 1993(2) B.L.J. 235 also has been cited in which also a decision of the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1979 SC 8501 has been relied on. The aforesaid case also relates to hire-purchase agreement. However, the matter related to default on the part of the hire-purchaser in making payment of instalment. The Hon ble Court held that the dispute raised in this case is purely a civil nature for which a process of the criminal court cannot be allowed to be used. 2002(1) P.L.J.R. page 93-94 has been relied on, wherein and whereunder, it was held that the agreement of hire-purchase is nothing but an executory agreement and in such a case a criminal case is not maintainable. In the aforesaid case the Hon ble Single Judge of this Court relied on a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Cr.Appeal No. 883 of 2001 wherein and whereunder it was held that criminal case in case of hire-purchase agreement is not maintainable as there is a forum of arbitriation proceeding and the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court Kolkata as regards arbitration proceeding. 9. On behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, however, it is contended that since pursuant to the arbitration receiver was appointed for taking possession of the vehicle and the vehicle could not be repossessed, as the petitioners made it disappeared or got it disposed of, thus under such circumstances agreement could not be executed. Therefore, learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 made a distinction in respect of this case and the cases discussed above in which civil remedy could be resorted to and further the subject matter or corpus of the hire-purchase was existing in those cases. 10. Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 placed reliance of Apex Court judgment as reported in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verms V/s. State of Bihar and Anr.; reported in 2000(3) SC page 137-143 WHEREin and whereunder it was held that in determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one and it depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. It has been submitted on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 that how it is a settled law that criminal complaint cannot be quashed only because there is a civil remedy. It has been submitted that the subsequent conduct on behalf of the petitioner in getting the vehicle disappeared, or disposed of making repossession of vehicle impossible in terms of arbitration agreement is subsequent conduct which implies that there was dishonest intention from the beginning in inducing Opposite Party No. 2 to finance the vehicle and the vehicle for purchased and retained in consequnce of the said finance but later-on got it vanished so that the agreement could not executed. It has been submitted that the ingredients of intentional detection on the part of the petitioner was existing at the beginning of transaction giving rise to the offence under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., it is submitted that that prima facie case is made out. It has further been submitted that in view of circumstances the case both civil remedy and criminal remedy can he pursued. 11. Considering the aforementioned position as enunciated on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners at this stage and the case of the petitioners cannot be looked into at the pre cognizance stage. The petitioners may take the aforesaid pleas at the time of framing of charge and if aforesaid pleas are made on behalf of the petitioners, the court below shall hear both the parties and pass an order according to law. 12. With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.