JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 17.07.2014 by which cognizance of the offence under Section 406/420 IPC has been taken in Bariatu P.S Case No. 70 of 2014 corresponding to G.R Case No. 1134 of 2014. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil dispute which primarily pertains to breach of an agreement with the informant would not incur criminal liability to the petitioner. It is further submitted that a civil dispute if has been given colour of a criminal case, it would not preclude the Court from quashing the complaint/F.I.R, if, a wholesome reading of the materials on record does not make out ingredients of the offence as alleged. 3. What would constitute cheating has been indicated by the Supreme Court in “Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd.” reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 , thus ; “32. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission, (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce 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.” 4. In “Onkar Nath Mishra and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2008) 2 SCC 561 ”, the Supreme Court has observed in the context of the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under section 405 IPC, thus; 16. According to Section 405 IPC, the offence of criminal breach of trust is committed when a person who is entrusted in any manner with the property or with any dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses it, or disposes it of, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged, or of any lawful contract, express or implied, made by him touching such discharge, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. Thus in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust, two distinct parts are involved. “10. Thus in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust, two distinct parts are involved. “10. … The first consists of the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is a misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created.” 5. In the First Information Report, the informant has made a specific assertion that he has paid Rs.12,76,000/- which is the consideration amount for purchase of Flat No. 301/A and he has produced photo copies of money receipts along with the written complaint. There is a specific allegation that the petitioner has not constructed the building. 6. At this stage, stating that Flat has been handed over to the informant and since trial in G.R. Case No. 1134 of 2014 has commenced, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this quash-petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise all such plea which are available to him in law, at the appropriate stage 7. In view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the plea raised by the petitioner, Cr.M.P No. 94 of 2016 stands withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner, as prayed for.