Judgment Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed assailing the summoning order dated 11.02.2009, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, in criminal complaint case no. 75 of 2009, Alps Industries Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Jaiswal. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia are that a criminal complaint was preferred by the complainant/respondent herein in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, stating therein, that complainant was engaged in the business of yarn in the name and style of Alps Industries Ltd., having Head Office at Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad (U.P.) and branches at Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar and other places; accused/petitioner was also engaged in the textile business in the name and style of M/s Pankaj Textile Ltd. At Bhadohi, District Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh; accused/petitioner herein time to time purchased yarns from the complainant/respondent herein amounting of several lacs of rupees; although, accused made payment for some of the consignments purchased, however, Rs. 2,33,321/- were outstanding against the accused/petitioner; instead of clearing the outstanding dues, petitioner took fresh supply of yarns costing Rs. 5,29,996/-; therefore, total Rs. 7,63,317/- were outstanding against the accused/petitioner; request letter, dated 20.06.2008, was issued by the complainant to the accused/petitioner herein requesting the accused/petitioner to make payment of Rs. 7,63,317/- along with 18 per cent interest; despite receiving the request letter dated 20.06.2008 and repeated requests made to the accused/petitioner, he did not make payment of the outstanding dues, consequently, complainant/respondent herein was compelled to issue legal notice on 26.11.2008 by registered post A.D., which was returned with the endorsement ‘refused’, therefore accused/petitioner may be summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 IPC. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, vide order dated 11.02.2009, having found prima facie offence against the petitioner made out under Section 420 IPC, was pleased to summon the accused/petitioner. However, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate did not find any prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, therefore, summoning order was not issued for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the summoning order dated 11.02.2009. I have heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner and Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent and have carefully perused the record. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the summoning order dated 11.02.2009. I have heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner and Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent and have carefully perused the record. Facts have already been reproduced herein before, therefore, need not to be repeated herein once again for the sake of brevity. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent herein while placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2009 (2) SCC (Cri), 332 argued that in every care of forgery and fraud, there would always be element of civil nature, therefore, this court should not interfere in the criminal proceedings at the summoning stage. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.W. Palanitkar vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2002 (1) SCC, 241 in paragraph no. 23 has held as under: 23. Many a times, complaints are filed under Section 200 CrPC by the parties with an oblique motive or for collateral purposes to harass, to wreck vengeance, to pressurize the accused to bring them to their own terms or to enforce the obligations arising out of breach of contract touching commercial transactions instead of approaching civil courts with a view to realize money at the earliest. It is also to be kept in mind that when parties commit a wrongful act constituting a criminal offence satisfying necessary ingredients of an offence, they cannot be allowed to walk away with an impression that no action could be taken against them on the criminal side. A wrongful or illegal act such as criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, cheating or defamation may give rise to action both on civil as well as on the criminal side when it is clear from the complaint and sworn statement that necessary ingredients of constituting an offence are made out. Maybe parties are entitled to proceed on civil side only in a given situation in the absence of an act constituting an offence but not to proceed against the accused in a criminal prosecution. Maybe parties are entitled to proceed on civil side only in a given situation in the absence of an act constituting an offence but not to proceed against the accused in a criminal prosecution. Hence before issuing a process against the accused in a criminal prosecution, Magistrate has to essentially keep in mind the scheme contained in the provisions of Sections 200-203 CrPC keeping in mind the position of law stated above and pass an order judiciously and not mechanically or in a routine manner. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2000 (4) SCC, 168 in paragraph nos. 13, 14 & 15 has hold as under: 13. Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the Code as: “415. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonesty 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’. Explanation. – A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.” The section required– (1) deception of any person; (2) (a) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) intentionally inducing that person 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. 14. On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest. 15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed. As per the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court as reported herein before, learned Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure should satisfy himself as to whether a pure civil dispute has been given colour of the criminal offence to settle the score and to victimize the accused/other parties of the agreement, with a view to realize money at the earliest. This Court, while examining the summoning order, ordinarily, should be slow in making interference with the summoning order; however, if this Court, having examined the entire material available on the record and settled principles of law, comes to the conclusion that on the face of it, civil dispute has been given colour of the criminal offence to settle the score and to victimize the other party of the agreement and on the face of it offence of cheating is not made out, this Court must come forward to quash the criminal proceedings. Let me now examine facts of the present case in the light of principles laid down in the case of Hardaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar and another (Supra). As per the contents of the complaint, accused/petitioner purchased yarns of lacs of rupees and made payment to the complainant time to time; however, only Rs. 2,33,321/- were outstanding and thereafter again accused/petitioner herein took the consignment of the yarns costing Rs. 5,29,996/- and thereafter did not make payment of the yarns, so purchased. Had there been any mens ria right from the very inception of the offence, petitioner would have not made payment of lacs of rupees initially; admittedly, he made payment time to time against the yarn supplied to him and as per the complainant himself an amount of Rs. 2,33,321/- only was said to be outstanding. Factum of payment of lacs of rupees initially against the cost of yarn supplied to the accused is sufficient to demonstrate that complainant was not induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver the yarn to the accused/petitioner. Mere non payment of the cost of yarn at the subsequent stage, in the case in hand, seems to be pure civil dispute. In the absence of fraudulent and dishonest intention right from the very beginning of transaction, complainant should not be permitted to invoke criminal jurisdiction to expedite the payment of cost of yarn supplied. He should be left to approach appropriate civil court for recovery. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed; impugned summing order is set aside; proceeding of Criminal Complaint No. 75 of 2009, Alps Industries Ltd. vs. Pankaj Jaiswal, on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed.