Judgment: Oral Judgment: This application is filed by the applicants praying for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report bearing F.I.R. No.92/2000, dated 11.7.2000, registered at Police Station Basmatnagar, Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli under sections 420, 464, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the applicants that the applicants are engaged in business of Film Distribution as an agent of Shiv Shakti Enterprises, Sikandarabad. In the month of November 1998, oral contract was entered in to between applicant No. 1 and Shiv Shakti Enterprises. As per this contract, it was agreed that the period of contract will be for five years. During this five years period, the applicants will distribute the films in Nanded and Parbhani Districts. The applicants have to pay Rs.7,00,000/- to Shiv Shakti Enterprises. The prints of the film will be in the custody of the applicants and will be given in every month. 3. On 10.11.1998 the applicant No. 1 paid Rs.1,00,000/- to Madanseth Bajaj, who is owner and partner of Shiv Shakti Enterprises and in turn he issued receipt to that effect. 4. On 7.4.2000 Shiv Shakti Enterprises acknowledged that it received total amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The agent of Shiv Shakti Enterprises named Shri. Suri has signed receipts. 5. It is further case of the applicants that film ’Tridev’ was being exhibited in Raghuvir Chitra Mandir, Parbhani and at that time, the agent of Shiv Shakti Enterprises found that this film was not given for exhibition. Shiv Shakti Enterprises, therefore, issued letter to Raghuvir Chitra Mandir, Parbhani dated 20.5.2000, stating that Nanded agent does not have the right to screen pictures at their centre. 6. It is further case of the applicants that the applicants are agents for distribution of films in Nanded and Parbhani Districts. It is the case of the applicants that agent of Shiv Shakti Enterprises Shri. Suri has received Rs.7,00,000/- from the applicants and he has also got signature of applicant No. 1 on a blank paper by giving assurance that agreement will be written on that paper. 7. It is the case of the applicants that on 11.7.2000 the respondent No. 2 lodged First Information Report in the Basmatnagar Police Station. The complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 discloses the fact that there was contract between the complainant and applicants to distribute the film prints for one year. 7. It is the case of the applicants that on 11.7.2000 the respondent No. 2 lodged First Information Report in the Basmatnagar Police Station. The complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 discloses the fact that there was contract between the complainant and applicants to distribute the film prints for one year. However, after completion of one year, it was extended for four months. Thereafter, the accused/applicants have prepared false contract and are distributing prints. 8. It is the case of the applicants that the entire complaint was based on a civil contract between the parties and about the duration of the contract. In the First Information Report, it has mentioned that duration of contract was extended till 17.4.2000. The contention of the applicants is that the contract is for five years. The complainant’s case was that even after completion of contract, the present applicants are distributing the films and therefore, the complaint was filed under section 420, 464, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. It is the case of the applicants that after filing the complaint, the respondent took assistance of police, with coercion and force seized 31 prints out of which the respondent No. 2 has taken away 7 prints and remaining prints are kept in one room of the applicants. This room was sealed by Police Sub Inspector and the respondent No. 2. The Police Constables were stationed at the house of complainant. 10. It is further case of the applicants that the respondent was bent upon to harass the applicants by abusing the process of law. Therefore, they sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, Parbhani on 29th July, 2000. It is further case of the applicants that the respondent/complainant is now bent upon to take possession of the prints with the help of police and through Court. The applicants therefore, filed application under section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code for return of property i.e. 31 film prints. At the same time, the respondents also submitted the application for custody of prints. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class was pleased to pass common order on 16.9.2000 whereby the application filed by the applicants is allowed. 11. The applicants therefore, filed application under section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code for return of property i.e. 31 film prints. At the same time, the respondents also submitted the application for custody of prints. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class was pleased to pass common order on 16.9.2000 whereby the application filed by the applicants is allowed. 11. While passing the order, allowing the application of present applicants by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, it is observed that the contract between the applicant No. 1 and Shiv Shakti Enterprises was effected in the year 1998, appears to be admitted fact. The dispute between parties appear in respect of the duration of the period of contract. As per the applicant No. 1 the contract was for five years. While according to the respondent No. 2, the contract was for only one year. The Court has observed that, it is pertinent to note that the said contract has not been brought on record by either side. In view of the rival pleadings, in absence of the said document, it is verbally impossible to ascertain the duration of the contract effected between applicant No. 1 and the respondent. 12. It is the case of the applicants that the respondents have committed breach of contract. The contract between applicants and respondent was for five years. However, after receipt of money, the respondent with ill intention making an attempt to rescind the contract unilaterally. 13. It is the case of the applicants that the First Information Report, even if taken as it is, it is clear that there is contract between the parties and there appears to be breach of contract. It is the case of the applicants that therefore, the allegations in the F.I.R., as disclosed, are of completely civil nature and therefore, the respondent has remedy to approach the Civil Court. 14. It is the case of the applicants that respondents are abusing the process of law and thereby harassing the applicants and therefore, the applicants have filed this criminal application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report. 15. It seems from the record that the respondents have not filed any reply in this Court. 16. 15. It seems from the record that the respondents have not filed any reply in this Court. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the F.I.R. clearly shows that there is contract between the parties and there appears to be breach of contract and therefore, the remedy available to the respondent for filing the complaint lies under Civil Law. He further submitted that on perusal of F.I.R., no offence is made out against the applicants. The act of respondent No. 2, filing criminal complaint, is nothing but sheer abuse to process of law. In absence of written contract between the parties, it is clear that, applicants have not forged any contract, in fact is not possible to forge oral contract, therefore, sections 464 and 471 are not attracted. For attributing section 420, the important ingredient is, there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement. The F.I.R. does not disclose a cognizable offence. Allegations made in F.I.R., if they are taken at their face value and accepted, then also they do not constitute prima facie case. 17. He further invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Haridaya and Another Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2000 (4) S.C.C. 168 . On the basis of para no. 15 of the said judgment, the learned counsel would submit that thebreach of contract and cheating are two different things. 18. The learned counsel for the applicants further invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Damji Shah V. Sarita Goradia and another, 1997 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 178 and submitted that in the said case this Court quashed and set aside process issued by the Magistrate on the ground that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and on the face of averments in the complaint, it cannot be said that complainant has made out any case for an offence punishable under section 420. 19. It is further argued that the respondent No. 2 has filed this criminal complaint only to avoid his civil liability. The Criminal Law cannot be set in motion for solving dispute of civil nature and therefore, he prayed that the application may be allowed and F.I.R. may be quashed and set aside. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that there was a written contract. The Criminal Law cannot be set in motion for solving dispute of civil nature and therefore, he prayed that the application may be allowed and F.I.R. may be quashed and set aside. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that there was a written contract. He further submitted that though the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has passed the order in favour of applicants, the said order was stayed in the revision, therefore, the learned counsel for the applicants is not right in submitting that the order passed by the J.M.F.C. has attended finality. He submitted that therefore, there is no substance in the application and application may be rejected. 21. I have perused the complaint which is placed on record along with application at Exh. D from pages 13 to 19. I have also perused the record of the case as well as pleadings in the application, reply of the respondents and I am of the considered view that even if the allegations in the F.I.R. are taken as it is, they do not make out or constitute criminal offence. The only severe allegation which is made in the complaint is that though the contract between the parties expired two months before, the applicants have not returned the prints to the complainant and they are showing the same movie/picture in cinema theatre and they have prepared a false agreement/contract and they are cheating the company by keeping prints with themselves. 22. It is admitted position that the documents i.e. written contract was not placed before the Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, First Class and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has observed in his order that though the respondent No. 2 claimed that there is a written contract, no document was placed either of the party to show that there was contract. Therefore, in my considered view, the allegations of the complainant that the applicants have prepared false contract is without any proof or substance. The complainant has not pointed out either to the lower Court or this Court, which was the false/bogus document produced by the applicants. 23. From reading of the complaint, it appears to me that the complete allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any criminal offence. It is evident that entire dispute between the parties is of purely civil nature. 23. From reading of the complaint, it appears to me that the complete allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any criminal offence. It is evident that entire dispute between the parties is of purely civil nature. After all whether the allegations made in the complaint/F.I.R. constitute criminal offence or not, depends upon the contents of the complaint in each case. In the present case, careful perusal of the contents in the F.I.R./complaint has unequivocally demonstrated that, no any criminal offence is attracted in the present case against the applicants. In my considered view, the learned counsel for the applicants is perfectly right in placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haridaya and Another Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2000 (4) S.C.C. 168 . In the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 15 has observed 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. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct, but for this, subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract can not 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. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating 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.” In para 17 the Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that, in case averments in the complaint on their face value do not constitute the criminal offence, in such a situation, continuing criminal proceedings against the accused will be abuse of process of the Court. 24. The learned counsel is also correct in placing reliance on para 4 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Damaji Raghavji Shah Vs. Sarita Maheshkumar Goradia & Anr., reported in 1997 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 178. 24. The learned counsel is also correct in placing reliance on para 4 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Damaji Raghavji Shah Vs. Sarita Maheshkumar Goradia & Anr., reported in 1997 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 178. Therefore, in my considered view, looking from any angle, the allegations in the complaint are of purely of civil nature. Therefore, though the contents in the F.I.R. are taken as it is, they do not constitute any criminal offence. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, ends of the justice would be meet if the F.I.R. No. 92/2000 is quashed and set aside. 25. In the result, the First Information Report bearing F.I.R. No. 92/2000 dated 11.7.2000 registered at Police Station Basmatnagar, Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli under section 420, 464, 471 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. The application is allowed and disposed of.