JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. By consent, heard finally. 5. The Petitioner had filed a complaint against Respondent No.2 herein, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 406 of the IPC by him. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process, Respondent No.2 challenged the said order by filing an application for revision in the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, who heard the revision application, allowed it, set aside the order issuing process and directed the complaint to be dismissed, as contemplated under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have gone through the complaint, a copy of which is annexed to the petition. The substance of the complaint is that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are friends since childhood, and that there often used to be money transactions between them. That, the Petitioner had complete trust in the Respondent No.2. That, the Respondent No.2 needed money and therefore, he demanded a loan from the Petitioner in the presence of a witness. The Petitioner, therefore, paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- by a cheque to Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 had promised to repay the amount after one year, but when, after the expiry of the period of one year, the Petitioner had demanded the money that from Respondent No.2, he issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the Petitioner, which was dishonoured with the remarks “funds insufficient”. That, the Respondent No.2 knew that there were no funds in the account held by him, but that, still, he issued a cheque, which made it clear that Respondent No.2 wanted to cause financial loss to the Petitioner and had committed ‘breach of the trust placed in him’ by the Petitioner. That, a demand of the amount was made by the Petitioner by sending a notice, but Respondent No.2 gave a false and wrong reply to the notice. That, therefore, the Respondent No.2 had committed criminal breach of trust and had deceived the Petitioner. 7. That, a demand of the amount was made by the Petitioner by sending a notice, but Respondent No.2 gave a false and wrong reply to the notice. That, therefore, the Respondent No.2 had committed criminal breach of trust and had deceived the Petitioner. 7. On a plain reading of the complaint, it becomes clear that it is a case of money advanced and not repaid. The allegations are such that they make out a case only of a civil liability. The allegation of criminal breach of trust is absurd, inasmuch as, there is no question of ‘entrustment’ of any property, allegedly made by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2. 8. Undoubtedly, if a person seeks a loan with an intention not to repay, he would be guilty of cheating, but there should be reasonable basis for holding that at the point when the demand of loan was made, the person concerned had a dishonest intention not to repay. Thus, dishonest intention should be shown to be existing from the inception. Otherwise, in every case of loan transaction, where the loan amount is not repaid, prosecution against the borrower would be possible, and all that the creditor has to do is to make an assertion that the borrower had dishonest intention at the time of borrowing. 9. On a fair reading of the complaint, it does not appear that any prima-facie case of any offence is disclosed therefrom. The Petitioner has not chosen to annex copy of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby he issued process not only with respect to the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, but also with respect to the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. As aforesaid, there was no entrustment of the property and the term used in the complaint is ‘Vishwasghat’ (“HINDI”, which is not equivalent to ‘criminal breach of trust.’ 10. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order passed by the Sessions Court, in revision, is bad, as the process came to be quashed solely on placing reliance on the reply given by Respondent No.2 to the notice of demand sent by the Petitioner. Though the entire reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be appreciated, he appears to be right in the ultimate conclusion viz; that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not disclosed from the complaint. Though the entire reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be appreciated, he appears to be right in the ultimate conclusion viz; that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not disclosed from the complaint. In such a situation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was entitled to quash the order issuing process in exercise of the revisional powers. 11. Since the complaint, on a fair reading, did not disclose commission of any offence, and only made out a case of a civil liability, the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to have committed any illegality, by quashing the issue of process and dismissing the complaint. 12. Consequently, no interference in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is called for. 13. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.