JUDGMENT R. R. PRASAD : By Court : This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.2.2001 passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case no.597 of 2000 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner. The case of the complainant is that while the complainant was searching a suitable flat/building for purchasing it, he came in contact with the petitioner who told that he along with his mother, brother and sister are jointly constructing multi storied building which would be named as 'Abhilasa Complex' and that booking is going on for sale of the flats. The flat measuring 990 sq.ft. and 960 sq.ft. would be sold for a consideration amount of Rs.4,70,250/-and Rs.4,56,000/-respectively. Thereupon the complainant, his brother and one Ranjan Das Gupta agreed to purchase flats by making initial payment of Rs.25,000/-. Out of it, a sum of Rs.10,000/-was paid by way of cheque and the rest of the amount of Rs.15,000/-was subsequently paid by the complainant and his brother in cash. On making such payment, the complainant and his brother asked the petitioner to execute deed of agreement to sell so that they may take loan from the Company. The said deed was scribed over which complainant and his brother put their signatures and gave it to the petitioner for putting his signature and signatures of other owners but they never returned the document after putting their signatures. Subsequently, when the complainant approached the accused, he communicated to the complainant that now the price of the flat has been fixed at the rate of Rs.550/-per sq. ft. whereas earlier it was fixed at the rate of Rs.475/-per sq.ft. and then refused to hand over the possession of the flat and also retained the said document over which the complainant and his brother put signatures and thereby it has been alleged that the accused persons have committed offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. On such complaint, when cognizance of the offence was taken by the court, vide its order dated 20.2.2001, the said order has been challenged in this application. On such complaint, when cognizance of the offence was taken by the court, vide its order dated 20.2.2001, the said order has been challenged in this application. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner can never be said to have committed offence of misappropriation or cheating as the petitioner has never been alleged to have induced the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly to part with the money for purchasing the flat and as such, no offence is made out punishable either under Section 420 or under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, even if it is accepted that the petitioner has retained a sum of Rs.25,000/-paid by the complainant and his brother. Learned counsel further submits that utmost it can be said to be a case of breach of agreement but never the case of criminal breach of trust or cheating. On the other hand, it is the case of the complainant that the petitioner had agreed to sell the flat to the complainant and his brother and had received initial payment which, according to the complainant, was never returned nor the flat was sold to the complainant. Under the circumstances, it is to be seen as to whether the allegation made in the complaint does constitute offence of cheating and misappropriation or not ? The offence of cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: “Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any persons shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind reputation or property, is said to 'cheat”. From its reading it appears that following ingredients should necessarily be there for constituting offence of cheating. From its reading it appears that following ingredients should necessarily be there for constituting offence of cheating. (1) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him (2) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any persons, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. (3) in cases covered by 2(b) the Act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in bodily or reputation or property. Thus, the first element necessary for constituting the offence of cheating is a deception of the complainant by the accused. Unless there is deception, the offence of cheating never gets attracted. After deception has been practiced the persons deceived should get induced to do or omit to do something. Then, the question arises as to what is the deception ? In the ordinary sense deception has in it the element of misleading or making a person believe something that is false or inculcating of one so that he takes the false as true, the unreal as existent, the spurious as genuine and it is also necessary that deception should be right from the beginning of the contract. Applying the principle constituting a criminal offence of cheating in context of the allegation it does appear that first element of deception constituting an offence of cheating is lacking as nowhere the allegations made in the complaint do indicate about the complainant being deceived by the petitioners in any manner. Here it would be apt to take notice of a case of Iridium India Telecom Limited vs. Motorola Incorporated and others [ (2011) 1 SCC 74 ] where the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking notice of the provision as contained in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code has been pleased to hold that deception is a necessary ingredient for the offence of cheating under both parts of the Section. It be recorded that there has been no doubt that if the facts constitute civil liability as well as criminal liability, then the remedy available for civil law cannot be a ground for quashing of the criminal proceeding which proposition of law has also been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited and others [ (2006) 6 SCC 736 ] but at the same time, it has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is a growing tendency in business circle to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interest of lenders/creditors. Such tendency is seen in several family dispute also leading to irretrievable brake down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled into a criminal prosecution, there is likelihood in imminent settlement. It has emphatically been said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that any effort to settle civil dispute and claims which do not involve any criminal offence by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Similar is the situation with respect to offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code as on the face of allegation made in the complaint the said offence never gets constituted. The provision of criminal breach of trust has been defined in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: “ 405. Criminal breach of trust – Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discouraged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge off such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. Here in the instant case, the petitioner even if accepted has retained a sum of Rs.25,000/-, he cannot be said to have dishonestly misappropriated as there was no intention right from the beginning to cheat or to misappropriate the amount, rather at best it does appear to be a case of civil dispute. Having come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute offence of cheating and misappropriation, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.2.2001 taking cognizance is hereby quashed. In the result, this application is allowed.