JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. C.P. 1037 of 2007 whereby and where under learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue of summons against the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner who is the accused person in the complaint, contacted the complainant for supply of 11,000 cubic feet of stone chips for the construction company of the petitioner at the cost of Rs.1,28,475/-(Rupees one lakh twenty eight thousand four hundred seventy five). The complainant supplied the said stone chips but the petitioner paid only Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) against the said supply. On repeated demand for rest of the money, the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) to the complainant. The said cheque was a forged one. Hence, the complainant could not receive any amount by the said cheque. The complainant sent a notice through his advocate to the petitioner but even then, the petitioner did not pay the rest amount to the complainant. It has specifically been mentioned in the complaint petition that since the beginning, with the fraudulent intention to deceive, the petitioner induced the complainant to deliver the stone chips and dishonestly used the said stone chips. The complainant in the complaint case has produced himself for recording his statement on solemn affirmation wherein he had corroborated the averments made in the complaint petition. 3. At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent and has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. The complaint does not contain any allegation to show that the petitioner is involved in any act of cheating and thereby induced the complaint to deliver any property to himself or any person. Hence, no offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The complaint does not contain any allegation to show that the petitioner is involved in any act of cheating and thereby induced the complaint to deliver any property to himself or any person. Hence, no offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is further submitted that there was a long standing business relationship between the complainant and the petitioner and admittedly, a part payment has been made; which shows that there has been no fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner to deceive the complainant from the very inception. Further, it is submitted that the dispute between the parties are purely of civil nature and it is a case of breach of contract. In support of his contention, the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Another reported in (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 373 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-7 has held that “the principle underlying exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in now well settled viz. that the allegations contained in the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety do not disclose an offence or not is the question.” Hence, it was submitted that the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed. 4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that in the complaint categorically there is specific allegation against the petitioner that since the inception with a fraudulent intention the petitioner accused deceived the complainant to part with the stone chips. So, the facts of this case are different from the facts of Vir Prakash Sharma (Supra) as in this case besides the allegation of failure to keep of the promise of payment of money, the allegation of culpable intention right at the beginning of the commission of the act, has also been alleged. Hence, learned Addl.P.P. submits that the petition being without any merit be dismissed. 5. The principle of law regarding quashing of the complaint is now well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in paragraph – 102 has held as under: “102. 5. The principle of law regarding quashing of the complaint is now well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in paragraph – 102 has held as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the code under Chapter XIV and the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following category of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or 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 a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 6. Further in Paragraph-103 of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in Paragraph-8 of the case of Binod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 as under:- “8.In proceedings instituted on the criminal complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly invoked with circumspection, it should be exercised to see that the process of law is not abused or misused. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein.” 9. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein.” 9. In the case of N. Soundaram vs. P.K. Pounraj and Another, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 616 in Paragraph 13, the Hon'ble Apex Court also concurred with the settled principle of law relating to exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as under:- “13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance.” 10. In the case of Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney vs. The State of Bombay reported in 1956 0 AIR (SC) 575; in paragraph 14, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the principle for determination of mens rea regarding the dishonest intention to constitute the offence of cheating by holding that- “14. On the question of mens rea, it has to be determined whether or not the appellant dishonestly disposed of those securities in violation of any of the terms of thee agreement aforesaid. As already indicated, the appellant did dispose of these securities in violation of the terms of the contract between the two banks. But still the question remains whether he did so dishonestly; in other words, whether when disposing of those securities the appellant had the intention of causing wrongful gain to the Exchange Bank or wrongful loss to the Cooperative Bank. 11. In our opinion, he intended both and, as a matter of fact, he caused wrongful loss to the pledgor bank and wrongful gain to the pledgee Bank. 11. In our opinion, he intended both and, as a matter of fact, he caused wrongful loss to the pledgor bank and wrongful gain to the pledgee Bank. The Exchange Bank raised money on those securities which it was not entitled to do and the Cooperative Bank was deprived of those securities, even though not for all times. It is settled law that a deprivation even for a short period is within the meaning of the expression. If he disposed of those securities with the intention of causing wrongful loss to the one and wrongful gain to the other, there can be no question but that the appellant had the necessary mens rea.” 12. The law relating to same set of facts giving rise to both civil liability and criminal prosecution is also well settled. In the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Daya Sapra [Civil appeal No. 3238 of 2009(arising out of SLP© No. 10997 of 2008], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 11 that:- “There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceeding at the same time. Both the proceeding, thus, can run parallely.” 13. The law relating to maintainability of a criminal prosecution for the breach of contract is also well settled in the case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others Vs. State of Bihar Another, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paragraph 8 as follows : “8. Before examining respective contentions on their relative merits, we think it is appropriate to notice the legal position. Every breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of a mental act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person wronged may seek his redress for damages in a civil court but a breach of trust with mens rea gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well.” 14. The law regarding the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating is also well settled in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 15 held as under:- “15. The law regarding the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating is also well settled in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 15 held as under:- “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.” 16. The law relating to the ingredients required for issuing process under section 204 Cr.P.C. is well settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. I.K.Nangia AIR 1979 SC1977 in paragraph -6 has held as under : “The test as laid down by this Court in the State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1978) 1 SCR 257 , is that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there as a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” 17. Perusal of the record reveals that in the complaint there is specific and categorical allegation against the petitioner that since the inception with a fraudulent intention the petitioner accused deceived the complainant to part with the stone chips worth Rs. 1,28,475/-. There is also allegation that the cheque bearing no. 663878 dated 15.05.2005 for Rs.10,000/-of Vijaya Bank issued by the petitioner turned out to be forged one. 1,28,475/-. There is also allegation that the cheque bearing no. 663878 dated 15.05.2005 for Rs.10,000/-of Vijaya Bank issued by the petitioner turned out to be forged one. Keeping in view the principle of law settled in the case of State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. I.K.Nangia(supra) it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any illegality. 18. Hence in this backdrop, I am of opinion that this is not a fit case for quashing the entire criminal proceeding or the order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. C.P. 1037 of 2007. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition having no merit is dismissed.