With the help of this application, made under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner, who is accused No. 2 in complaint case, bearing number CR Case No. 887C/2009, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, has sought for quashing of the complaint, as a whole. 2. Before I come to the complaint, it may be pointed out that, having examined the complainant and two of his witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, passed an order, on 20.06.2009, to the effect that the complaint, the documents enclosed therewith, the statements of the complainant and his witnesses disclose ingredients of offences, under Sections 120B/420/406/34 IPC, and, accordingly directed issuance of processes not only against the accused-petitioner but also against other persons named as accused in the complaint. 3. I have heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. I have also heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the accused-opposite party No. 3. 4. Before I come to the complaint, determination of the question as to whether the complaint, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, needs to be quashed, it is appropriate to point out that the ingredients of offences, under Section 406 IPC, are quite different from the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. No one can be penalized for commission of both the offences inasmuch as an offence, under Section 406 IPC, provides for punishment for criminal breach of trust, and criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 IPC, 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 discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person to do so, commits „criminal breach of trust?.” 5. A bare reading of Section 405 IPC shows that the accused is either entrusted with a property or acquires dominion over the property and he misappropriates the same dishonestly or converts the same for his own use or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property. In criminal breach of trust, thus, the person comes into possession of a property honestly, but he develops dishonest intention subsequent to his acquiring dominion over the property by way of entrustment or otherwise. 6. As against the above, Section 420 IPC is, again, a penal Section, which punishes for commission of an offence of cheating, which stands defined under Section 415 IPC, which, if reproduced, reads as under: “415. 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 person 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?.” 7. A careful reading of the definition of „cheating?, as contained in Section 415 IPC, makes it clear that the accused, in a case of cheating, acts with dishonest intention from the commencement of the transaction and induces, by deception, fraudulently, or dishonestly the person deceived, to deliver any property, or omit to do anything, which the person would not do or omit, if he were not so deceived and by which act or omission causes or likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, the definition of cheating clearly reveals that right from the commencement of the transaction, the accused act dishonestly, which means that the intention of making either wrongful gain or wrongful loss to a person deceived. A wrongful gain means, as per Section 23 IPC, a gain of a property, to which the person gaining is not legally entitled, and wrongful loss means a loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing is legally entitled. 8. A wrongful gain means, as per Section 23 IPC, a gain of a property, to which the person gaining is not legally entitled, and wrongful loss means a loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing is legally entitled. 8. Ordinarily, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the learned Court below to determine as to what offences, if any, the complaint, in the light of the statements made by the complainant and his witnesses, are made out ? Since a person cannot be held responsible for both the offences inasmuch as the complaint and/or the statements of the complainant and his witnesses do disclosed, the order, dated 20.06.2009, shows lack of appropriate application of mind by the learned Court below inasmuch as it has, without determining as to whether the complaint satisfies the ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC and/or offence under Section 406 and/or offence under Section 120B IPC, directed issuance of processes under the said penal provision. 9. Bearing in mind what is indicated above, let me, now, turn to the complaint and determine if the complaint discloses commission of the offences, whereunder the accused have been summoned. It needs to be noted, in this regard, that the complainant’s case is, in brief, thus: Accused No. 1, namely, Smti. Kaveri Goswami Choudhury @ Kaveri Goswami, is the recorded pattadar of a plot of land. An agreement was executed, on 15.11.2008, between the accused Kaveri Goswami Choudhury, on the one hand, and the complainant, on the other, for sale of the said plot of land on a total consideration of Rs. 36 lakhs and the complainant had paid Rs. 5 lakhs, in cash, on the date of execution of the sale agreement, the said amount of Rs. 5 lakhs having been acknowledged by the said Kaveri Goswami Choudhury. The agreement, aforementioned, also stipulated that a further sum of Rs. 10 lakhs would be paid after seven days of filing the application for sale permission in the office of the GMDA and another sum of Rs. 5 lakhs would be paid on obtaining of sale permission from the GMDA and that the balance consideration amount would be paid by the complainant to the accused No. 1 on the day of execution and registration of the sale deed in the name of the complainant. 5 lakhs would be paid on obtaining of sale permission from the GMDA and that the balance consideration amount would be paid by the complainant to the accused No. 1 on the day of execution and registration of the sale deed in the name of the complainant. Though the accused No. 2, namely, the petitioner herein had acknowledged the said agreement, he sold the said land by hatching conspiracy with the accused No. 1 for the purpose of causing wrongful loss to the complainant and for making wrongful gain for themselves. In consequence of the conspiracy, so entered into, the present accused-petitioner purchased, according to the complainant, the said land, on 08.12.2008, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. Thus, the entire transaction of sale was, according to the complainant, shame sale transaction and the accused persons intended to commit the offence of cheating, misappropriation and criminal conspiracy. 10. The complainant also instituted Title Suit No. 280/2008, on 23.12.2008, for a specific performance of the contract, which the complainant alleges to have had with he accused-opposite party No. 1, as mentioned hereinbefore. In the said Suit, while the opposite party No. 3 herein was defendant No. 1, the present petitioner was impleaded in the said suit as defendant No. 2. This apart, the complainant has also instituted Title Suit No. 438/2008, on 12.12.2008, seeking an order of injunction restraining the accused-opposite party No. 3 from selling the suit land. As the land already stood sole on 08.12.2008, the injunction, which had been sought for, was not granted. 11. The question, which confronts this Court, now, is whether the complaint discloses commission of any offence, particularly, offences under Sections 120B/406/420 read with Section 34 IPC ? 12. While considering the question, posed above, what attracts the attention, most prominently, is that there is no allegation, in the complaint, that the complainant had been induced by the seller, i.e., accused No. 1, namely, Kaveri Goswami Choudhury, for purchasing the said plot of land. It has not been alleged, in the complaint, that Kaveri Goswami Choudhury had, at any point of time, approached the complainant requesting him to purchase the said land. In such circumstances, the complaint cannot be said to have disclosed commission of offence of cheating, because cheating, as indicated above, requires a dishonest state of mind at the very inception of the transaction. In such circumstances, the complaint cannot be said to have disclosed commission of offence of cheating, because cheating, as indicated above, requires a dishonest state of mind at the very inception of the transaction. I have carefully gone through the statements of the complainant and also his two witnesses and, here again, it transpires that the allegations, made by the complainant and his witnesses are to the effect that an agreement of sale had been entered into between the complainant and the said Kaveri Goswami Choudhury, on 15.11.2008, and it was in breach of the said agreement that the land was sold by its owner to the accused petitioner. Thus, the complainant’s statements aforementioned, when read together, cannot be said to have made out any case of commission of offence under Section 420 IPC, either with or without the aid of Section 34 IPC. 13. Coming to the question as to whether the complaint discloses commission of offence under Section 406 IPC, suffice it to point out that the complainant demanded the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, which he had paid, in advance, because Kaveri Goswami Choudhury refused to give the money. There is no ingredient of dishonest misappropriation of money and, in fact, the existence of the agreement itself is not denied by the accused No. 1, namely, Kaveri Goswami Choudhury. In the circumstances, the complaint cannot be said to disclose commission of offence under Section 406 IPC, either with or without the aid of Section 34 IPC. 14. As against the present accused-petitioner, the case of the complainant stands on a far different footing inasmuch as the accused-petitioner No. 1 is a purchaser of property and, if he had purchased the property with the knowledge of the existence of a previous agreement, this would, by itself, not expose the accused-petitioner No. 1 to prosecution, either under Section 406 IPC, or 420 IPC. 15. So far as the offence under Section 120 B is concerned, this Section, which defines criminal conspiracy, lays down as under: “120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy. 15. So far as the offence under Section 120 B is concerned, this Section, which defines criminal conspiracy, lays down as under: “120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy. – (1) that whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this CPC for punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.” 16. In the case at hand, thought it has been alleged by the complainant that a conspiracy had been entered into by the accused No. 1 as well as accused No. 2 (i.e., petitioner herein) for the purpose of committing offence of cheating and misappropriation of the money, which had been paid by the complainant to accused No. 1, this assertion, in the complaint, can, at best, be regarded as inference drawn from the facts, but what the Court needs, in order to enable it to summon any witness, is not inference but facts. 17. In view of the fact that the complaint does not disclose commission of offence of cheating and/or criminal breach of trust, the mere allegation, that a conspiracy had been entered into by the parties concerned to commit offence of cheating and/or misappropriation, could not be enough and ought not to have been treated as enough by the learned Court below to issue processes for alleged commission of offence under Section 120B IPC. 18. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the complaint, in question, when read in the light of the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, do not make out any case of commission of any offence and, in such circumstances, this Court cannot but quash the complaint. 19. Though Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 2, has, in support of his case that the complaint is sustainable in law, referred to the decision, in Lee Kun Hee and others vs. State of U.P. and others (AIR 2012 SCW 1316). 19. Though Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 2, has, in support of his case that the complaint is sustainable in law, referred to the decision, in Lee Kun Hee and others vs. State of U.P. and others (AIR 2012 SCW 1316). On taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court, referred to by Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel, this Court has found that what the Supreme Court has laid down, in paragraph 26 of its decision, in Lee Kun Hee (supra), is that for an offence of a given nature, there can be, in a given case, civil liability coupled with criminal culpability and, when a party has been deprived of his right by an act of cheating, the same can be claimed through a civil action. The decision, in Lee Kun Hee (supra), does not, in any way, hold that if the complaint does not disclose ingredients of any offence, there can be a complaint of cheating or criminal breach of trust for mere breach of agreement, as in the case at hand, inasmuch as what the complaint discloses is, really, a breach of contract and does not furnish adequate and necessary materials attracting offences under Section 120B/406/420/34 IPC. 20. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court is of the firm view that since the complaint as well as the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, when read together, do not make out any prima facie case of commission of offence, whereunder summons have been issued, allowing the complant case to proceed further would but an abuse of the process of the Court and cause serious miscarriage of justice. 21. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this application succeeds and the complaint, in question, is hereby quashed. 22. 21. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this application succeeds and the complaint, in question, is hereby quashed. 22. However, before parting with this application, made under Section 482 CrPC, it is hereby made clear that whatever have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment are entirely for the purpose of determination of the question as to whether any offence can be said to have been committed by the accused in the light of the allegations made in the complaint and/or the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and that none of the observations, made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, shall be taken into account by the learned Court below, while dealing with the suit for specific performance of contract, or the suit for injunction, particularly, because this has not been decided, at any stage, as to whether any agreement of sale, between the complainant and the accused No. 1, namely, Kaveri Goswami Choudhury, and/or with the petitioner herein, who is accused No. 2 in the complaint, was or was not entered into. Hence, this question would remain open for adjudication by the learned Civil Court in accordance with law. 23. Send back the LCR. _____________