JUDGMENT : Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 04.07.2011 as also quashing of entire criminal proceeding pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case no. 241 of 2011 instituted under Section 420 and 406 of I.P.C. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details of the allegations made in the complaint petition, the relevant fact, which is necessary for the proper adjudication of the question involved in this petition, in short, is that the complainant, an Accountant of M/s. PRE-STRESSED UDYOG INDIA (P) LTD., Dhansar, Dhanbad was authorized by the Managing Director of the Company to file the complaint case, whereafter, the complainant filed the complaint with the allegation that the accused persons came in the office of the complainant and by making false and dishonest representation proposed to purchase a land of Khata no. 104 of Mouza No.-7 at Hirapur having an area of 52 decimals on the ground that the accused Prasant Kumar Mukherjee along with one Vidyanand Chourasia had entered into an agreement to sale with one Sumitra Devi for purchase of the land in question but as there was paucity of fund, he was not in a position to purchase the land and proposed the same to the complainant. The Managing Director agreed to purchase the said land in the name of his company and paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque dated 13.07.2007 as an advance consideration money. After receiving the cheque, the accused again by making false and dishonest representation took away Rs.54,000/- and promised to execute the sale deed but in spite of several requests and reminders, the accused did not execute the sale deed. Whereafter, the complainant enquired about the alleged agreement from Sumitra Devi, who told that neither she nor her husband ever entered into any agreement with the petitioner or with Vidyanand Chourasia. On enquiry from the accused-petitioner, he gave in writing to return the entire amount of Rs.1,54,000/- to the complainant but when he failed to return the said amount, this complaint was filed. 3. On enquiry from the accused-petitioner, he gave in writing to return the entire amount of Rs.1,54,000/- to the complainant but when he failed to return the said amount, this complaint was filed. 3. After examining the complainant as well as the Managing Director of the Firm as PW-1, the court upon being satisfied with sufficiency of materials and the prima facie case, took cognizance of offence by a detailed order dated 04.07.2011 and directed to issue process against the accused-petitioner. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Sinha appearing for the petitioner assailing the order taking cognizance vis-a-vis the continuation of criminal proceeding as bad in law seriously contended that from mere perusal of the complaint, it would appear that there is no criminality rather it is a civil wrong and for realization of money, only remedy lies in filing of civil suit and that none of the ingredients responsible to constitute the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C. are available on record to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It was also submitted that continuation of the criminal proceeding is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and the court below without applying its judicial mind in a mechanical manner passed the order impugned taking cognizance of offence. 5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel Mrs. Mazumdar appearing for opposite party no.2 supported the order taking cognizance and contended that there is sufficient material on record to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence and at this stage, the court has not to make a roving inquiry and if the court is satisfied with a strong prima facie case that is sufficient for the court to proceed in the case. 6. Before I enter into the veils of submissions of the learned counsels, a reference of the case Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora and others; (2013) 10 SCC 581 is necessary wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 30 and 31 has held as follows:- “30. It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the court should not “kill a stillborn child”, and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the court should not “kill a stillborn child”, and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither can the court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. More so, the charge-sheet filed or charges framed at the initial stage can be altered/amended or a charge can be added at the subsequent stage, after the evidence is adduced in view of the provisions of Section 216 CrPC. So, the order passed even by the High Court or this Court is subject to the order which would be passed by the trial court at a later stage. 31. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned complaint or orders impugned herein. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.” 7. In the light of the ratio decided by the Hon?ble Supreme court, it is not open to this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance when the court below has found sufficient material on record for taking cognizance. It is well settled that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment and the court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising the jurisdiction but at the same time, it is equally true that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceeding or the order taking cognizance, at the very threshold the court should not ‘kill a stillborn child’. At this stage, the court has to see the prima facie evidence available on record and the court is not even concerned with the fine niceties of the defence of the accused. 8. In a case Indian Oil Corporation Vs. At this stage, the court has to see the prima facie evidence available on record and the court is not even concerned with the fine niceties of the defence of the accused. 8. In a case Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited; (2006) 6 SCC 736 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code in paragraph-12, which reads as follows:- “12. …….. (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” 9. As regard to the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that in the given set of facts, as disclosed in the complaint petition, it clearly makes out a case of civil wrong, in my opinion, merely because the allegations relates to breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available, cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. The fact that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque and Rs.54,000/- in cash was given to this petitioner and his accomplice and they assured to execute the sale deed but even after several reminders, they did not execute the sale deed. Obviously, the money was entrusted to the accused persons on their false representation that they have entered into an agreement with the owner of the land but on enquiry from the land owner, it transpired that no such agreement was ever made with the accused person. So, from the very beginning, there was intention to deceive the complainant. 10. I have carefully examined the allegations made in the complaint, the order impugned taking cognizance and I find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order taking cognizance and the same has been taken upon being satisfied with the prima facie material available on record. 11. Hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition, being devoid of any merit, is, hereby, dismissed.