ORDER : Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 1918 of 2013, Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 3500 of 2013, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 1918 of 2013 and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 11.02.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 508 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) has been taken. 3. A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party No. 2 in which it was stated that the petitioners had represented the complainant that they have been carrying business in the name of various companies and had further stated that if an advance amount of Rs. 5 to 10 Lakhs is given then they would supply coal against that payment at a bargain price from October, 2009. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs. 8,70,000/- was paid through two cheque. Subsequently however coal was never supplied and it is said that there were too many pending orders and on one pretext or the other the delivery was not made. It has also been alleged that the accused persons in conspiracy with each other and some other persons had collected huge amount of money from several persons with a dishonest intention. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. 1918 of 2013 that the complainant himself is doing business in coke and coal as per his own averment in the complaint petition and he procures coal from various sources. It has further been submitted that due to several pending orders with the petitioners, supply of coal could not be made. Learned senior counsel further submits that ingredients for constituting an offence u/s 415 I.P.C. is not made out as there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. Learned senior counsel has referred to Section 415 I.P.C. and has submitted that if a person receives an amount and intends to deliver the goods, but afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver the goods, the same would not amount to an offence of cheating. Learned senior counsel has referred to Section 415 I.P.C. and has submitted that if a person receives an amount and intends to deliver the goods, but afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver the goods, the same would not amount to an offence of cheating. It has therefore been submitted that no case u/s 420 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner and if at all the complainant is aggrieved he can avail remedy before a competent Civil Court. 5. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 3500 of 2013 has adopted the arguments of learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 1918 of 2013. He has further submitted that so far as the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 3500 of 2013 is concerned, there is no allegation against him of receiving any amount of money and the said fact would further solidify his case for quashing the entire criminal proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has referred to certain paragraphs of the complaint petition and has submitted that from which it can be deduced that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners from very inception of the contract. It has also been submitted that in spite of taking Rs. 8,70,000/- as an advance, delivery of coal was never made. He further submits a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners in view of the statement made in the complaint and S.A. and therefore the learned Judicial Magistrate was within his rights to take cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 420/34 I.P.C. 7. The dispute as it seems is with respect to supply/non-supply of coal to the complainant by the petitioners. It appears that an amount of Rs. 8,70,000/- in two installments was given by the complainant, but in spite of repeated assurances on one or other pretext delivery of coal could not be made. The complaint petition does not reveal that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to deliver the coal in spite of taking an amount of Rs. 8,70,000/-. Since as it appears that there was a dishonest intention from the very inception, the ingredients of cheating is clearly made out against the petitioners. The complaint petition does not reveal that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to deliver the coal in spite of taking an amount of Rs. 8,70,000/-. Since as it appears that there was a dishonest intention from the very inception, the ingredients of cheating is clearly made out against the petitioners. A prima facie case being in existence against the petitioners to prosecute them and therefore there does not appear any error or illegality in the impugned order. Which does not require any interference by this Court. There is no merit in this application. Which is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed