JUDGMENT : - One Smt. Rajnandini Mohanta, Proprietress of M/s. P & R Services, lodged a complaint against Wipro Ltd. through its Company Secretary and other officers of said company being complaint case No.C1670 of 2012 in the Court of learned CJM 24 Pgs. (South) at Alipore praying for issuing of process against those accused persons under Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Said complaint was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 7th Court, Alipore for disposal according to law. Learned Magistrate after examination of the complainant and another witness under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued process under Section 420/120B I. P.C. against the accused persons vide order dated 4th April, 2012. 2. Azim Hashmi Premji being chairman of Wipro Ltd. and accused No.3 of said complaint filed a revisional application being CRR No.2037 of 2012 praying for quashing of said criminal proceeding arising out of CR Case No.1607 of 2012 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Other accused persons also filed a similar application under Section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 being C.R.R. No.2038 of 2012 praying for quashing of said criminal proceeding. As both the applications arose out of same criminal proceeding and order of issuing process and the allegations against the parties were almost same, both the revisional applications were taken up for analogous hearing. The allegation of the complainant (O.P. No.2) in said criminal case may be summarized as follows:- The complainant used to provide man power services to various departments of the accused company for last 12 years under contracts which were renewed from time to time till 17th of July, 2011. The service agreement was not renewed on some false allegations of lack of integrity on the part of the complainant’s company. There was a threatening to initiate legal proceedings against her and her concern unless the complainant accepted the oral termination. Said threatening was given by Surinder Nair (accused No.4) and Meeno Jacob (not an accused in this case). The accused company, on the other hand, employed those employees of the complainant in the service of other “service providers” of the accused company without any intimation to the complainant in utter violation of the agreement between the parties. The salaries of those outsourced employees were being paid by said service providers. The accused company, on the other hand, employed those employees of the complainant in the service of other “service providers” of the accused company without any intimation to the complainant in utter violation of the agreement between the parties. The salaries of those outsourced employees were being paid by said service providers. The complainant made complaint against the said high handed activities of the officers of the accused No.1 company to the higher authorities of the accused No.1 company but without any result. The complainant had invested huge amount to train her employees to acquire valuable skills and technical know-how to enable them to discharge their contractual obligations with accused No.1 Company. The illegal termination of the service agreement caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused company. The said act of the accused company and his officers resulted in the offence of cheating of the intellectual property of the complainant company after entering into agreement of conspiracy by all the accused persons. The accused persons were also guilty of causing misappropriation of the complainant’s intellectual property namely the trained work force of the complainant company which were given to the accused company for working. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate examined two witnesses namely complainant Smt. Rajnandini Mahanta and one of her employees Asish Doloi. On the basis of their evidence recorded under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure learned magistrate issued process under Section 420/120B I. P.C. against all the accused persons vide order dated 4th April, 2012. Learned Magistrate, however, declined to issue any process under Section 406 I. P.C. against any of the accused persons as no sufficient ground was made out to attract the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant (O. P. No.2) initially filed a civil suit on 13.02.2012 against the accused company as the dispute was civil in nature. According to him, the criminal case was filed later on 28.03.2012 just to put pressure upon the present petitioners. According to him, work force even if trained cannot be the intellectual property or any kind of property of the complainant’s company. According to him, the criminal case was filed later on 28.03.2012 just to put pressure upon the present petitioners. According to him, work force even if trained cannot be the intellectual property or any kind of property of the complainant’s company. He next submits that as per complaint it was clear that there was long 10-12 years business relation between the parties in terms of contracts which were renewed from time to time and that ultimately on refusal to renew the contract this criminal case was filed. According to him, there is no ingredient whatsoever to show even prima facie that accused persons had any fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making of the contract about 10/12 years back that it would be flouted at a later stage. According to him, mere failure to keep promise subsequently or to renew the contract, a culpable intention right at the beginning i.e., when the promise was made cannot be presumed. According to learned counsel for the petitioners even if the complaint is read as a whole and taken on its face value still it cannot be said that any offence under Section 406 or under Section 420/120 B I. P.C. has been made out. In this connection he refers case laws reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 129 (S.W. Palanitkar and others vs. State of Bihar and another), (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 746 (Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and another), (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 223 (Dalip Kaur and others vs. Jagnar Singh and another), (2012) 1 C Cr. LR (SC) 37 (M/s. Thermax Ltd. & Ors. vs. K. M. Johny & Ors.), (2008) 1 C Cr. LR (Cal) 508 (Krishna Kumar Bangur vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.). 6. He further submits that in the complaint there was specific allegation of putting pressure upon and threatening to the complainant by two officers of the accused company namely Surinder Nair (accused No.4) and one Meeno Jacob (not an accused) but in the criminal law the principle of vicarious liability is absent. In this connection he refers case laws reported in (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692 (Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat and others) and (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1113 (Keki Hormusji Gharda and others vs. Mehervan Rustom Irani and another). 7. In this connection he refers case laws reported in (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692 (Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat and others) and (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1113 (Keki Hormusji Gharda and others vs. Mehervan Rustom Irani and another). 7. He further submits that said allegation of threatening and putting pressure upon the complainant by those two persons was not even stated during examination of the witnesses under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly he prays for quashing the criminal proceeding as it was filed just to harass the accused persons. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant / O. P. No.2 submits that exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent powers as envisaged under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the complaint quashed is an exception rather than a rule. According to him, the Court should not unnecessarily interfere when a criminal case has started to roll and should leave it to be decided on its own merit. In support of his contention he refers case laws reported in 1985 SCC (Cri) 180 (Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar and another), 1999 SCC (Cri) 401 (Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi and others), 2000 SCC (Cri) 47 (Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others), 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 (MEDCHL Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. and others), 2003 SCC (Cri) 1530 (Ajay Mehra and another vs. Durgesh Babu and others), (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188 (Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others), JT 2010 (9) SC 142 (State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Arun Gulab Gawali & Ors.), JT 2009 (4) SC 402 (Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna & Anr. Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu & Anr.), JT 2010 (9) SC 69 (Kishan Singh (D) through L.Rs. vs. Gurpal Singh & Ors.). 9. He further submits that the act on the part of the accused persons may be the cause of action for filing both civil as well as criminal case. It is no ground, he submits, that the criminal proceeding should be quashed as because a civil suit has been initiated. In this connection he refers case laws reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 275 (Lalmuni Devi vs. State of Bihar and others), 2003 SCC (Cri) 223 (K. G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and another). 10. It is no ground, he submits, that the criminal proceeding should be quashed as because a civil suit has been initiated. In this connection he refers case laws reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 275 (Lalmuni Devi vs. State of Bihar and others), 2003 SCC (Cri) 223 (K. G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and another). 10. The admitted position of the case as it came out from submissions of the learned counsels of the parties as well as from the materials on record, is that for over 10 –12 years the complainant company provided trained employees to the accused No.1 Company for being engaged in different sections of work and that suddenly the accused company refused to renew the agreement on making some allegations which were reported to be false by the complainant. It further appears that the accused company and its officers started to deploy those employees to other service providers causing heavy financial loss to the complainant company and financial gain to the accused company. In view of said illegal unilateral termination of the agreement the complainant company initially filed a civil suit and later on filed the present criminal proceeding alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating and conspiracy against the accused company and its officers who were made accused persons in the petition of complaint. 11. In Pratibha Rani’s case (supra) it was categorically stated that the High Court should very sparingly exercise its discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. In Pratibha Rani’s case (supra) it was categorically stated that the High Court should very sparingly exercise its discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In said case para 5 of the judgment of Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in 1976 SCC CRI 507 was quoted with approval which is noted below:- “Thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside: (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused.; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings.” 12. The other judgments referred by learned counsel for the complainant/ O. P. No.2 on the point of power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. were more or less on the similar line of the case of Pratibha Rani and so I refrain from quoting from those judgments. 13. In the case in hand, the process was issued under Section 420 /120B I. P. C. against the accused petitioners. 14. The ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are ; (i) Deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property or (iii) to consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit. 14. The ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are ; (i) Deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property or (iii) to consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit. An offence of cheating would be constituted when the accused has fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. A pure and simple breach of contract does not constitute an offence of cheating. The bulk of the case laws referred by learned counsel for the petitioner accused persons highlighted these principles as just stated above. 15. In the case in hand, admittedly the complainant company provided trained employees to the accused No.1 Company under certain terms and conditions as per agreements which were renewed from time to time and continued for 10-12 years. If we accept the complainant on its face value then the accused No.1 Company and its officers who were made accused in the case illegally terminated said contract unilaterally thereby causing heavy financial loss to the complainant company. It also appears from the complaint that accused No.1 Company and its officers thereafter employed those trained employees of the complainant company with other “service providers” in violation of the terms of the agreement and thereby causing unlawful gain to the accused No.1 company. Even if all the allegations are taken in face value still there is conspicuously absent the main ingredient of Section 420 I. P.C. namely fraudulent or dishonest inducing at the initial stage i.e., about 10/12 years back when the contract was made between the parties. 16. Admittedly, the alleged property of the complainant company is the trained personnel who were given by the complainant company to the accused No.1 company for doing various work under certain terms and conditions. It is not the case that the accused No.1 company illegally restrained those trained work force of the complainant company from returning to the complainant company. As such, such work force of the complainant company can very well return to the complainant company if they so desire. As such, for non-returning of the work force of the complainant company the accused No.1 company or its officers cannot be blamed. As such, such work force of the complainant company can very well return to the complainant company if they so desire. As such, for non-returning of the work force of the complainant company the accused No.1 company or its officers cannot be blamed. Said work force even if highly trained cannot be treated to be intellectual property or any kind of property of the complainant company. It is true that for non-renewing of the contract with complainant company and for deploying said work force to other “service providers” by the defendant No.1 company and its officers in violation of the terms of the contract in between the parties, the complainant company may suffer financial loss. But even in that case also the ingredients of Section 420 are missing. The alleged act of the accused No.1 company and its officers may entitle the complainant company to have compensation and other reliefs, if any, in a civil forum. 17. Admittedly, the complainant Company has already initiated a civil proceeding against the accused No.1 Company. It is true that there is no bar to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings if the alleged act of the accused permits initiation of both the proceedings. But I have already stated that the petition of complaint on its face value read with the evidence of the complainant and witness recorded under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not disclose, even prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 406, 420/120B I. P.C. against any of the accused persons. 18. In this connection the caution of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others reported in (2006) 6 SCC page 736 may be noted. It was stated by the Hon’ble Court that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which, do not involve any criminal office, by applying pressure through a criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 19. It is true that if this Court does not interfere at this stage under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure still then the accused persons have the opportunity to raise these questions at the time of hearing on the point of “framing of charge” in the Trial Court. 19. It is true that if this Court does not interfere at this stage under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure still then the accused persons have the opportunity to raise these questions at the time of hearing on the point of “framing of charge” in the Trial Court. But when the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of the offence for which the process was issued then it will be abuse of the process of the Court if the criminal proceeding is permitted to continue till it reaches the stage of hearing for “framing of charges”. No person should be permitted to be subjected to a criminal proceeding when it is prima facie apparent that the continuation of the criminal proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the Court. As the dispute between the parties in the instant case is purely civil in nature and it does not give rise to any criminal liability then its continuation will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for quashing the proceeding in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the proceeding in C.R. case No.1607 of 2012 pending in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore stand quashed. 20. Both the criminal revisional applications stand allowed on the grounds stated above. 21. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Court below urgently. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsels of the parties, if applied for.