JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Both the above-mentioned criminal miscellaneous petitions arise out of the same impugned order and the prayer of the petitioners in both the cases are also the same and, as such, both the petitions were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In Cr. Misc. No. 19706/1999, the petitioner No. 1 Shri A.I. Rebelo is the General Manager, Commercial Vehicle, Spares, Hire- Purchase and Sales Administration whereas petitioner No. 2 Shri Ratan Tata is the Director of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited (TELCO). So far as Cr. Misc. No. 19846/1999 is concerned, the petitioner No. 3 is the dealer of M/s. TELCO, whereas petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of the dealership firm and petitioner No. 4 is the Works Manager of the dealer. The prayer in both the petitions is to quash the order taking cognizance dated 30th July, 1999 and also to quash the entire criminal proceeding against them in connection with PCR Case No. 228/1999, in which, the Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 427, 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons including the petitioners. 3. The facts in short giving rise to these two applications are that O.P. No. 2 Delip Kumar Patwari filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, against six persons, alleging commission of the offences under Sections 406, 427, 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered as PCR Case No. 228/1999. The allegations in the complaint petition are: (a) On 10.7.1997 the complainants wife purchased one LP 1312 TC Bus Chasis, from the accused No. 3, i.e. Shri Mohan Himmatsingka, Proprietor of Phooltas Auto Ltd., Layak Bhavan, Boring Canal Road, Patna, the authorized dealer of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as TELCO") and the said bus chasis was registered and numbered vide registration No. BR-08-P-7171. At the time of purchase the authorized dealer of TELCO as well as TELCO through its dealer and agencies assured the complainant and his wife that the said model No. LP 1312 TC was one of the best vehicles and there should not be any defect in its operation, performance, efficiency and relying on that assurance and reposing faith on the accused Nos. 1 and 4, the complainant purchased the said Model LP 1312 TC bus. At the time of purchase warranty was also issued in respect of the said bus for a period of two years or for running of the vehicle for 2,00,000 K.M. whichever is earlier. (b) On 24.2.1999, the engine of the vehicle in question was ceased to work, due to manufacturing defect within the warranty period and necessary information was given to the accused persons and local dealer M/s. R.A. Himmatsingka & Co. at Dumka by the complainant, when the accused Nos. 1 and 4, i.e. Mr. Rahul Himmatsingka, partner of the dealer and A.K. Jana, the Works Manager of the dealer asked the complainant to bring the bus to their workshop. Subsequently, the complainant handed over the bus to the accused Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. to the dealer on 26.2.1999. (c) After the bus was received by the accused No. 1 as aforesaid; the accused Nos. 1 and 4 took the plea that the period of warranty had already expired, when in fact the period under warranty was till in force. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 also demanded 5 percent of the cost of changing the engine of the bus in question illegally, from the complainant. However, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 after checking the engine of the bus in question in presence of the service engineer of manufacturer TELCO accepted that it was due to manufacturing defect that the engine got ceased and accordingly, accepted the claim of the complainant and assured to replace the said engine. (d) Though the accused Nos. 1 and 4 accepted the claim of the complainant and assured to replace the engine of the vehicle in question but on various plea they did not take any step in the matter, in spite of repeated approach made to them by the complainant and neither the defect of the engine was repaired nor the same was changed. (e) Subsequently TELCO, stopped the production of the Model No. 1312 TC Chasis, because several complaints were received from the customers in respect of the engine of the said model and the said model was found defective for which the company had to settle various complaints with regard to the engine of the said model covered under warranty. (f) The complainant was/is facing loss of Rs. (f) The complainant was/is facing loss of Rs. 1,000/- per day for non- plying the bus due to the defective engine and the accused persons could not remove the defect since 24.2.1999. The complainants wife also filed a Consumer Case No. 5/1999 against the accused persons before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Dumka. (g) When the defects of the aforesaid model No. 1312 TC were detected and a large number of vehicle of the aforesaid model were manufactured, the accused No. 5 (the petitioner No. 1 herein), i.e. the General Manager of TELCO and accused No. 6 (the Director of TELCO and the petitioner No. 2 herein) in connivance with their dealers, including the accused Nos. 1 and 3 in order to cheat the purchasers started selling the said model and in this manner the complainant and his wife, being the registered owner of vehicle No. BR-08-P-7171, were cheated by them. (h) Though the complainant gave several information but no step for the replacement of the said defective engine of the bus in question was made either by the manufacturer or by their authorized dealers and finally on 11.6.1999, the complainants wife received a registered letter from the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in which it was stated that M/s. R.H. Himmatsingka & Co. is not supposed to guard the vehicle as it is parked at the risk and responsibility of the complainants wife. After sending the aforesaid letter the accused has replaced 4 new tyres of the said vehicle and some other costly parts and misappropriated the same, either by selling those or using the same for their own purpose, which has resulted in a loss of Rs. 45,000/- to the complainant and his wife. (i) Finally when the complainant issued a letter to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for return of the vehicle without the engine, the accused persons flatly refused to hand over the same and they also made a demand of Rs. 1,525/- as parking charge from the complainant. This conduct of the accused shows their dishonest intention to misappropriate the entrusted property so that the complainant may suffer loss. Thus the accused persons have committed offence punishable under Sections 406, 427, 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. 1,525/- as parking charge from the complainant. This conduct of the accused shows their dishonest intention to misappropriate the entrusted property so that the complainant may suffer loss. Thus the accused persons have committed offence punishable under Sections 406, 427, 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC was made and thereafter, by order dated 30th July, 1999 after finding prima facie case against all the accused persons the learned Magistrate issued summons against them to appear and face trial. 5. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for two petitioners, i.e. Shri A.I. Rebelo, General Manager and Shri Ratan Tata, Director of M/s. TELCO limited in Cr. Misc. No. 19706/1999, submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition on their face value are take to be correct, they do not constitute any offence for which cognizance has been taken by the Court below. He further submitted that there is no allegation at all that the two petitioners at any time met the complainant. It is also not alleged that they made any representation or misrepresentation to the complainant at the time of supply of the vehicle. From the allegations it does not appear that the said two petitioners conspired with the other accused persons for the sale of the vehicle in question. He further submitted that even if it was established that the engine supplied to the complainant by the authorized dealer was defective it would still not amount to any offence and the complainant would at best be entitled to replacement of engine and for damages, which is purely a civil dispute but the complainant has converted the civil dispute into a criminal case merely as a pressure tactics for forcing settlement in purely a civil dispute. The ingredients of the offences for which the cognizance has been taken are totally absent and, therefore, the whole prosecutions against these two petitioners are liable to be quashed. In order to substantiate his arguments, the learned senior counsel relied on the following decisions: ; Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited ; State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy and Anr. ; Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi ; S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. ; Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate. 6. Mr. ; Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi ; S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. ; Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate. 6. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 19846/1999 by adopting the argument of Mr. Tulsi, has further submitted that the complainants plea with regard to warranty was not applicable because the warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part thereof is repaired otherwise than the standard repair procedure or by any persons other than the authorized dealer. He further submitted that the engine of the bus, which was supplied to the complainant, was examined by the Works Manager and after examination it was found that the failure of the engine was due to poor maintenance of the vehicle and not due to any mechanical or manufacturing defect. It is after failure of the engine due to rough handling, the complainant wanted to get his engine replaced in the garb of warranty without paying the cost. He further submitted that in a case of cheating, the presence of dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction is a prerequisite condition, which is totally absent in the facts of the present case. The complainants allegations about the stoppage of production of the model of the engine in question by the petitioner No. 1 in connivance with the other petitioners/accused persons is ridiculous as because the model in question was not commissioned for cheating a few buyers. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited, has held that a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal; prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 8. In the case of State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy and Anr. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 8. In the case of State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy and Anr. it has been held by the Supreme Court that when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. 9. In the said judgment it has further been held that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. In the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi, , the Apex Court has held that the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation, is necessary. 10. In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. , the Supreme Court has held that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made. It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, to say 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. It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, to say 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. It has further been held that no doubt; exercise of inherent power under Section 482, Cr PC by High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions, but in a case where ingredients of alleged offences are not satisfied even prima facie, it cannot be said that power under Section 482, Cr PC should not be exercised to quash the process issued by a Magistrate. 12. In the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate , the Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 13. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 13. Keeping in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court noticed above and considering the arguments on behalf of the parties, I have carefully scrutinised the entire allegations made in the complaint petition, the statements of the witnesses examined during enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC as well as the statements of the complainant on solemn affirmation and on careful scrutiny of the same, I find that no ingredients of the offences, for which the cognizance has been taken, is present in this case rather the dispute between the parties as alleged is predominantly of a civil nature. Even from the allegations made in the complaint petition as well as the statements on solemn affirmation and the statements of the witnesses recorded during enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC, it appears that the complainant has attempted to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. There may be some truth in the allegations of the complainant that the chasis/engine of the bus, which was purchased or was supplied by the dealer started giving some trouble to him but from that fact alone it cannot be inferred that the manufacturer and the dealer had an intention to cheat the complainant and had any dishonest intention at the inception when the chasis/engine was supplied to the complainant. 14. From the allegations made by the complainant and his witnesses it does not appear that the petitioners in any way made any misrepresentation to the complainant or his wife to impress upon them by inducement for purchase of the chasis/engine of the bus. From the allegations made by the complainant it also does not appear that the petitioners made any false promise and/or misrepresented for replacement of the alleged defective engine. There is nothing to show that at the time of supply of the chasis/engine by the dealer to the complainant or his wife it was known to the petitioners that the chasis/engine was defective and they intentionally supplied the same to the complainant in order to cheat him. 15. In view of the discussions and findings above. There is nothing to show that at the time of supply of the chasis/engine by the dealer to the complainant or his wife it was known to the petitioners that the chasis/engine was defective and they intentionally supplied the same to the complainant in order to cheat him. 15. In view of the discussions and findings above. I hold that summoning the petitioners and taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 427, 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code was totally an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, both these criminal miscellaneous applications are hereby allowed and the cognizance taken against all the petitioners/accused persons by the Court below and the entire criminal proceedings against them in connection with PCR Case No. 228/1999 is hereby quashed.