JUDGMENT : D V S S Somayajulu, J. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash all further proceedings in FIR.No.246 of 2019 of Chimakurthy Police Station, Prakasam District on the ground that an essentially civil dispute has been given a criminal colour and that the prosecution is malicious. 2. This Court has heard Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, who has argued in line with the counter affidavit filed. 3. Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that contractual relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent is governed by an agreement dated 04.06.2007 by which he states that the petitioner is given the right to excavate and take out black galaxy granite. Learned counsel points out that since 2007, the agreement has been in force, guarantees were also given and all other contractual obligations were complied. Learned counsel points out that there is a methodology prescribed for termination of the contract, particularly by the first respondent if there is a breach by the petitioner. It is his contention that because of some alleged breaches in the contract, the first respondent has given a show cause notice. He also relies upon the earlier correspondence on the subject and also the stand of the petitioner including the claims raised by the petitioner in their letters which are filed as material papers. The essence of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire dispute, even if it is held to be correct, is "civil" in nature and the essential reliefs can be money claims only and not criminal proceedings. He points out that to the show cause notice that was issued; an appropriate reply was given on 26.02.2019 also. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel that if there is any claim, it can only be a civil case and a civil action has to begin. Relying on the following case law, learned counsel argues that none of the offences are attracted at all. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel that if there is any claim, it can only be a civil case and a civil action has to begin. Relying on the following case law, learned counsel argues that none of the offences are attracted at all. (1) State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561 (2) Vesa Holdings Private Limited v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 (3) Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd., (2005) 10 SCC 228 (4) Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 10 SCC 663 (5) Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal, (2007) 7 SCC 373 (6) Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 9 SCC 148 (7) K.A.Mathai @ Babu v. Kora Bibbikutty, (1996) 7 SCC 212 4. He points out that the essentially important offences are under Sections 420, 447 and 379 IPC. As far as the offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned, learned counsel points out that on the basis of the settled law that the intention to cheat should be present right from the inception. In the case on hand, he argues that the contract was entered into in 2007 and because of alleged breach in 2019, section 420 IPC is not attracted. As far as trespass under section 447 IPC is concerned, learned counsel submits that the petitioners were duly inducted and are in settled possession of the property by virtue of an agreement. Therefore, he argues that the question of trespass does not arise. Even with regard to section 379 IPC and theft, learned counsel argues that the petitioner has been permitted to remove the material. Therefore, he argues that the removal of the material pursuant to a contract cannot be called as a "theft". With regard to last offence under Section 406 IPC, learned counsel argues that extraction of material as per the contract cannot be called a 'breach of trust'. 5. In reply to this, learned Public Prosecutor states that this is not the stage to quash the proceedings. According to him, four witnesses were examined and the accused are also absconding. Relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T.Vengama Naidu v. T. Dora Swamy Naidu, (2007) 12 SCC 93 , learned Public Prosecutor argues that merits and demerits of the FIR should not be gone into at this stage. According to him, four witnesses were examined and the accused are also absconding. Relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T.Vengama Naidu v. T. Dora Swamy Naidu, (2007) 12 SCC 93 , learned Public Prosecutor argues that merits and demerits of the FIR should not be gone into at this stage. According to him, the statements in the FIR must be taken at their face value and he submits that this Court cannot embark on a detailed enquiry on the alleged correctness of the FIR/offences. 6. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.Jayanthi v. K.R.Meenakshi (Crl.Appeal No.1817 of 2019), learned Public Prosecutor argues that the Court should see whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for an action. Therefore, he argues that this Court should not go into the depth of the material and analyse whether the ingredients have been made out or not. 7. While the argument of the Public Prosecutor appears to be appealing at first blush, the law is very well settled and does not require repetition, particularly about the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and of the civil/criminal conundrum. The case law relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also adequate and do answer the point that this raised. 8. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue raised is essentially about a contractual dispute that has allegedly gone wrong. The contract that has been in existence since 2007 and has been performed substantially is now the matter of the dispute. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the criminal process should not be used as a measure of coercion and to get reliefs. The dispute centers round the obligations assumed by both thee parties under the contract. 9. This Court at this stage cannot and should not go into the merits or demerits of the matter. This Court is of the opinion that for an offence under Section 420 IPC to be attracted, there should be an element of intention to cheat right from the inception. This Court cannot in the facts and circumstances of the case find that there is such an offence. Similarly, the petitioners were also entitled to extract the mineral as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. This Court cannot in the facts and circumstances of the case find that there is such an offence. Similarly, the petitioners were also entitled to extract the mineral as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, for the sake of extraction of the mineral, they are in possession of the property and are extracting the same. Therefore, this Court holds that it cannot be said that a prima facie case of theft and trespass is made out. Even the offence of criminal breach of trust in the opinion of this Court is not made out merely because the first respondent directed the petitioner to stop extraction of the material. It cannot be said that because of alleged extraction after the said order, there is a criminal breach of trust. The issue is one of breach of contract. Till it is established who is guilty of the breach, cannot be said that merely because an order was given in writing or a letter was written, the petitioner committed criminal breach of trust. Even in cases of criminal breach of trust, there should be dishonest, misappropriation of the property or dishonest use of the property. In the case on hand, it is not in the opinion of this Court if it is within the parameters of section 405 IPC. The petitioner is claiming to extract the property as per the contract. Assuming for the sake of argument that the said extraction is after the decision of the first respondent, this Court is of the opinion that it may lead to a civil claim, but not a breach of trust. 10. Therefore, from a reading of the entire case law and the submissions, this Court is of the opinion that for all the reasons mentioned above none of the offences are made out. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that this is eminently fit the case in which the extraordinary power vested on this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. Therefore, exercising the said power, this Court quashes all further proceedings in FIR.No.246 of 2019 of Chimakurthy Police Station, Prakasam District. 11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.