Judgment : This application under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. has been filed by Ms. Mun Mun Roy, an accused in G. R. Case No.837 of 2009 corresponding to Sessions Case No.190 of 2010 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court at Barrackpore and the offences under Section 420/406/307/500, 120B of the I. P. C. praying for quashing of the prosecution against her mainly on the grounds that no case, whatsoever, is made out under the above mentioned sections against her either in the F.I.R. or in the charge sheet and that continuation of this prosecution would be amounting to abuse of the process of the Court. There is no necessity to give the factual reference in detail. Suffice it to state that the petitioner herein engaged the defacto complainant Susanta Kr. Pal as her Lawyer in different cases in the year 2007. In the year 2009, the petitioner informed the defacto complainant that she would not proceed with the case with the help of the defacto complainant Mr. Pal and asked for returning of all the briefs. Thereafter, she had also undertaken in writing to pay Rs.9.25 lakhs to the defacto complainant Susanta Kr. Pal towards payment of outstanding fees. The petitioner failed to keep that promise made in writing in form of undertaking and also threatened the opposite party no.2, i.e., the defacto complainant Mr. Pal of dire consequences. The opposite party no.2, Mr. Pal initially lodged one petition of complaint and thereafter another one which was referred to the Ghola Police Station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. and on the basis of the said F.I.R., the case was investigated into and ended in a charge sheet under Section 420/406/307/500/120B of the I.P.C. against the petitioner, Ms. Mun Mun Roy. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate and upon commitment of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Barrackpore has taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and fixed date for hearing on the point of charges. At this juncture, the petitioner has come up with this application praying for quashing of the prosecution mainly on the above grounds. Mr. At this juncture, the petitioner has come up with this application praying for quashing of the prosecution mainly on the above grounds. Mr. Yasin Ali, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that no offence under Sections 420/406/307/500 of the I.P.C. is made out at all even if the allegations and aspersions put forth in the F.I.R. are accepted on their face value, uncontroverted and in entirety. He takes this Court to various documents made annexures to the petition and submits that there was no case of fraud or breach of trust or defamation as well as attempt to commit murder. On the contrary, he submits, the petitioner paid Rs.7 lakhs and odd to the opposite party already by a cheque and the opposite party No.2 has acknowledged the same. He takes this Court also to the bank statement in support of his contention. Mr. Kamalesh Ch. Saha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 contends that the offence criminal breach of trust is committed by the petitioner because she acted in deceitful manner with an intention to cheat the opposite party no.2, Mr. Pal and failed to pay the amount as promised within the period specified in the declaration. He also submits that for constituting an offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C., causing actual physical harm is not required. He also submits that the reputation of Mr. Pal was lowered in the eyes of general public. Therefore, question of quashing the prosecution does not arise specially at this juncture when the learned Court has fixed a date for hearing over the framing of charges. At the Bar, many legal points have been discussed such as civil suit vis-a-vis criminal action, ingredients for constituting the offences for criminal breach of trust, attempt to commit murder and cheating etc. It is settled principle of law that merely because an act has a civil profile that does not denude of its criminal outfit unless the allegations fall short in making out a criminal case. In the instant case, the crux of the entire dispute is that the petitioner herein failed to keep the promise made by her in writing. In other words, the question is whether non-fulfilment of promise can be said to be an offence within the meaning of Section 420 of the I.P.C. or not. In the instant case, the crux of the entire dispute is that the petitioner herein failed to keep the promise made by her in writing. In other words, the question is whether non-fulfilment of promise can be said to be an offence within the meaning of Section 420 of the I.P.C. or not. This Court doubts whether only not keeping promise constitutes an offence of cheating because the main ingredient of the offence of cheating is fraudulent or dishonest intention to deceive and thereby acquiring some personal gain and causing wrongful cause of another. It was either an omission on the part of the maker or it might be intentional. It is a matter of strict proof thereof and this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. should not and must not decide the falsity and genuinity of the facts. It is the domain of the Trial Court. As regards offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. is concerned, I find that an undertaking in writing was made by the petitioner to pay Rs.9.25 laksh to the petitioner/defacto complainant. There is no case of entrustment of any property whatsoever. But there is a case of violation of contract. Whether contract is lawful or unlawful and coming within the periphery of Section 406 of the I.P.C. is a matter of strict proof also. I find that there is enough scope for the petitioner to raise these points before the learned Trial Court. This Court, however, does not find on perusal of the F.I.R. and charge sheet that any offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is made out at all. No offence of defamation is also made out prima facie. At best, the petitioner can be tried for an offence under Section 506 of the I.P.C. instead of Sections 307 and 500 of the I.P.C. It is trite law that while Court has taken cognizance of the offences and proposes to commence the trial, this Court should not probe deep into the genuinity or falsity into the allegations and aspersions by appreciating the documents placed before it by the parties specially by the accused. In every case, an accused has opportunity to make out his specific case and file documents as defence witness. This apart, the trial of the case has not yet been commenced. In every case, an accused has opportunity to make out his specific case and file documents as defence witness. This apart, the trial of the case has not yet been commenced. Naturally, the petitioner being the accused in the case can raise all these points before the learned Trial Court at the time of framing of charge. This Court has already expressed his view as far as alleged offences under Sections 307/500 I.P.C. are concerned. Whether the petitioner/accused is required to be tried at all for committing any offence under Sections 420/406 of the I.P.C. or not, can well be decided by the learned Trial Court at that time. Being the trial Court, it will be having more scope to go detail in the matter and examine all the documents which are to be placed before him by the parties. Therefore, this Court declines to allow the prayer at this stage. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate all these points before the learned Trial Court at the time of framing of charges and the learned Trial Court is directed to consider the documents to be placed by the petitioner/accused before it for the purpose of considering whether or not she is at all required to be tried for any offence under Sections 420/406 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, this revisional application stands dismissed and disposed of. Xerox plain copy of this order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the appearing parties on usual undertaking.