ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No. 83 of 2015 of Taliparamba Police Station, Kannur District for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, seeks to quash all further proceedings in the aforesaid crime. The complaint was registered on the basis of the private complaint filed by the second respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thaliparamba and the same was forwarded to the Thaliparamba Police Station. 2. The allegation is that the petitioner has agreed to sell a bus bearing Registration No. KL55C 7688 on the basis of an agreement fixing the sale consideration of Rs.6,90,000/-. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-was advanced and balance amount of Rs.2,90,000/-would be given on or before 01.01.2014. On the basis of Annexure I agreement, the petitioner had agreed to sell the vehicle to the second respondent. Eventhough the appellant demanded to comply with the agreement on several occasions, the second respondent was not prepared to abide by the conditions imposed in the agreement. The petitioner issued Annexure II notice on 20.01.2014. Again, the petitioner issued Annexure III lawyer notice on 28.04.2014 through an Advocate. The petitioner could not even operate the vehicle because of the terms of the agreement and the vehicle was kept idle. The petitioner had taken all relevant records to transfer the vehicle in the name of the second respondent; but the second respondent had not turned up to accept the vehicle. The petitioner had sustained heavy loss and he had initiated civil proceedings against the second respondent for damages. Thereafter, the second respondent has submitted Annexure IV complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thaliparamba. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out in this case. The second respondent violated the conditions of the agreement and he has not performed his part and a complaint was filed alleging offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 4. I have gone through Annexure I agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. It was agreed to sell a bus for Rs.6,90,000/-. In fact, Annexure I agreement was not materialised. 5. 4. I have gone through Annexure I agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. It was agreed to sell a bus for Rs.6,90,000/-. In fact, Annexure I agreement was not materialised. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Devadathan and others v. State of Karnataka and another [ 2012(1) KHC 723 ], Kanakam Thampi and others v. State of Kerala and another [2015 KHC 3690] and Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others [2013 KHC 4459. In Devadathan, it is held that breach of agreement for sale would not constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC. In the absence of evidence that there was inducement to part with advance money or that advance amount was parted in pursuance of the inducement, the trial court went wrong in taking cognizance of the offence. The only allegation is breach of agreement for sale. 6. In Sarabjit Singh, it is held that in the absence of any material to support the charges levelled on the accused, the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR. Non-production of investigation report by the complainant would draw an adverse inference against the complainant. In that case, FIR was lodged on the basis of an agreement to sell pending civil litigation. The details of agreement to sell or the terms thereof was not mentioned in the FIR. 7. In Kanakam Thampi, it is held that a mere failure to keep a promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating. It is trite that to hold the person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making such a promise and such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from a mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfill the promise. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that there was intention to deceive at the time when the inducement was made. It is necessary to show that the person had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise to say that he committed an act of cheating. In fact, the breach of agreement for sale could not constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC. 8. In V. Ravikumar v. State, rep. It is necessary to show that the person had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise to say that he committed an act of cheating. In fact, the breach of agreement for sale could not constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC. 8. In V. Ravikumar v. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and others [2018 KHC 7004], it is held that while breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. 9. In the instant case, there is no evidence to prove that there was inducement on the part of the petitioner to get advance amount from the respondent. Moreover, he has sent Annexures II and III notices to the second respondent to comply with the conditions imposed in Annexure I agreement. It is evident that before the registration of the FIR, the petitioner had issued legal notice to the second respondent to comply with the conditions in Annexure I agreement. But he failed to do so. The petitioner has initiated civil litigation so as to recover the damages due to the revocation of agreement. Thereafter only the second respondent has initiated criminal prosecution against the petitioner. Since the dispute is purely of civil nature, initiation of criminal proceedings is likely to cause great hardship and injury to the petitioner, if he is implicated in a false case without any supporting materials before court. Considering all the facts, I am of the considered opinion that the allegations raised in the petition do not make out a case against the petitioner to initiate criminal prosecution. The petitioner is justified in seeking an order to quash in Crime No. 83 of 2015 of Taliparamba Police Station. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime No. 83 of 2015 of Taliparamba Police Station is hereby quashed.