ORDER : Heard Mr. M.K. Laik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in spite of valid service of notice. 2. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 62 of 2001 including the order dated 10.04.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Bokaro whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379, 426, 484 and 420 of the I.P.C. 3. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the parties were on friendly relationship previously as in the complaint case itself a mention has been made about the transaction which had taken place between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. Learned senior counsel further submits that the cheque which was purportedly given to the petitioner was never encashed and therefore no loss has been caused to the complainant. It has been submitted that since the allegation relates to business transaction between the parties, no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner and therefore, the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner should be quashed. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has supported the impugned order dated 10.04.2001 and has stated that on bare perusal of the complaint petition and the solemn affirmation of the complainant, a prima facie case of cheating and criminal breach of trust has been made out against the petitioner. 5. The allegation which has been made against the petitioner is of taking friendly loan of Rs.2,25,000/- by the petitioner and it was agreed upon that in lieu of such loan, Indira Vikas Patra of Rs. 2,50,000/- as security would be given to the complainant. Subsequently, cheques were given by the complainant to the petitioner, but on the one pretext or the other, the Indira Vikas Patra which was to be given as security deposit was never handed over to the opposite party no. 2. Further allegation has been made that the complainant had come to know that the petitioner with an oblique motive has tried to encash the cheque and on being asked when he went to the petitioner, the petitioner and some other unknown persons had assaulted the complainant and has also snatched Rs. 5,000/-. 6. 2. Further allegation has been made that the complainant had come to know that the petitioner with an oblique motive has tried to encash the cheque and on being asked when he went to the petitioner, the petitioner and some other unknown persons had assaulted the complainant and has also snatched Rs. 5,000/-. 6. The complaint petition itself reveals that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 were having business relationship and friendly loans were used to be taken frequently. Neither from the complaint petition nor from the solemn affirmation of the complainant it get deduced that the cheques which were given by the complainant to the petitioner were ever encashed or that the petitioner was benefited by the alleged transaction which has taken place. Even otherwise, the allegations seems to be on account of business transaction which had taken place between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and only with a view to create pressure, the present case has been filed. Moreover, the petitioner has also instituted a case under Section 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the I.P.C. against the complainant being B.S. City P.S. Case No. 61 of 2001. Since there does not appear to be any criminal intent or criminal offence which has been made from the perusal of the complaint petition, the continuation of criminal proceeding shall be an abuse of the process of the law. 7. Accordingly, this application is allowed. 8. The entire criminal proceeding in connection with C. P. Case No. 62 of 2001 including the order dated 10.04.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Bokaro whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379, 426, 484 and 420 of the I.P.C. is quashed.