ORDER : 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Dumka (Town) P.S. Case No.20 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.120 of 2018 which has been registered for the offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC. 2. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a plain reading of the written report dated 29.01.2018 on the basis of which a First Information Report has been lodged does not disclose commission of any offence. It is contended that on the informant's own saying Rs.3,60,000/-which allegedly was given to the petitioner was a friendly loan, however, a civil transaction has given the colour of a criminal case. 3. In support of the aforesaid contentions, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment in “Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.” reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293 . 4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel for the informant-O.P. No.2 contends that once payment to the petitioner is established through the bank transactions and the petitioner does not deny and assert that he has paid back Rs.3,60,000/-to O.P. No.2, he is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC. 5. Briefly stated, before a First Information Report was lodged on 30.01.2018 marriage of the petitioner's son was solemnized with the daughter of the informant on 11.03.2015. The petitioner has pleaded that a false case alleging demand of dowry was lodged by the informant's daughter vide FIR No. Dumka (Mahila) P.S. Case No.03 of 2016 in which the petitioner was initially granted protection under section 438 Cr.P.C and finally he has been released on bail. About 3 years after the marriage of the petitioner's son with the informant's daughter a written report has been lodged on 29.01.2018 on the allegation that the petitioner has refused to return Rs.3,60,000/-which was received by him for treatment, repairing of the house and other necessities. According to the informant, payments were made to the petitioner on 25.02.2015, 03.03.2015, 24.03.2015 and 30.06.2015. 6. What would constitute criminal breach of trust has been explained by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. According to the informant, payments were made to the petitioner on 25.02.2015, 03.03.2015, 24.03.2015 and 30.06.2015. 6. What would constitute criminal breach of trust has been explained by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. The offence of the criminal breach of trust involves two stages, namely; (i) creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused and, (ii) misappropriation or converting the property for own use dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created. 7. To constitute the offence under section 415 IPC intention to deceive or the inducement must be proved at the initial stage when a person is said to have been deceived. In “Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI” reported in (2003) 5 SCC 257 , it has been held that to hold a person guilty of cheating as defined under section 415 of the Indian Penal Code it is necessary to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise with an intention to retain the property. 8. On his own saying the informant-O.P. No.2 admits that when the petitioner allegedly refused to return Rs.3,60,000/-on 01.11.2017, he discussed the matters with his family members and came to a conclusion that the petitioner intends to misappropriate Rs.3,60,000/-which was given to him. The petitioner had the intention to deceive him has, however, not been alleged by the informant when the petitioner requested for a friendly loan of Rs.5 lacs, that is, on 20.02.2015. The aforesaid amount has been given to the petitioner in 4 installments and the transactions have spread over more than 4 months. At any stage when the informant has paid Rs.3,60,000/-to the petitioner in installments, he has not alleged that the petitioner has deceitfully misled him to deliver the aforesaid amount to him. A bare reading of the written report dated 29.01.2018 unerringly discloses that a civil dispute has been converted into a criminal case. Reading the written report as a whole and on its face value, all that is reflected is that Rs.3,60,000/-was paid to the petitioner which he allegedly has declined to return to the informant- O.P. No.2. A bare reading of the written report dated 29.01.2018 unerringly discloses that a civil dispute has been converted into a criminal case. Reading the written report as a whole and on its face value, all that is reflected is that Rs.3,60,000/-was paid to the petitioner which he allegedly has declined to return to the informant- O.P. No.2. This incident may give a cause of action to the informant-O.P. No.2 to institute a money suit for recovery of Rs.3,60,000/-, but on such allegation he cannot be permitted to prosecute the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC. 9. Viewed thus and for the aforesaid reasons, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Dumka (Town) P.S. Case No.20 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.120 of 2018 is quashed. 10. In the result, Cr. M.P. No.821 of 2018 is allowed.