JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in FIR No.1656 of 2017 on the file of F2 Egmore Police Station, Chennai and quash the same.) 1. The above petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R No.1656 of 2017 on the file of F2 Egmore Police Station, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that in a commercial transaction, given a colour of criminal case, unnecessarily the husband and wife have been implicated without even the company being made an accused. The learned counsel further submitted that there were transaction between the parties for many years in respect of supply of leather products. Only when there is some default in payment at later point of time due to the loss in the company both the husband and wife have brought into the criminal case. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that absolutely there is no intention whatsoever to deceive the 2nd Respondent/defacto complainant. Therefore, mere default committed on later part cannot constitute the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the Accused. Therefore, in the absence of any culpable intention on the part of the accused keep their promise, the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. cannot be pressed into service. Therefore, mere breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating, unless deception played by the accused was present from the very inception. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that FIR itself registered after obtaining the direction from this Court. Though the cheques were dishonoured the defacto complainant not initiated any action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that itself clearly indicate that there is only a breach of contract and there was no deception played by the accused. Whereas wife has also implicated in order to coerce the payment from the husband and the company has not made an accused. Therefore, the entire lodging of the FIR is not valid and cannot be proceeded in the absence of any intention on the part of the accused. 4. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following judgments: 1. Alpic Finance Ltd., Vs. Therefore, the entire lodging of the FIR is not valid and cannot be proceeded in the absence of any intention on the part of the accused. 4. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following judgments: 1. Alpic Finance Ltd., Vs. P.Sadasivan and another [ (2001) 3 SCC 513 ] 2. Inder Mohan Goswami & Ors vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. [ (2007) 12 SCC 1 ] 3. Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarkand and Ors [ (2013) 11 SCC 673 ] 4. International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials and Ors. vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics Pvt. Ltd., [ (2016) 1 SCC 348 ] 5. Ramesh Dahyalal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. [2017 SCC Online Bom 9322] 6. Rakesh P. Sheth & Ors. vs. State & Ors. [2018 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 215] 7. Singanamala Ramesh Babu vs. State and Ors [MANU/TN/5724/2020] 8. Duraisamy & another vs. The Inspector of Police DCB, Cuddalore [Crl.O.P.No.1128 of 2016 High Court Madras dated 07.06.2021] 9. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., vs. Neeta Bhalla and Ors. [ AIR 2005 SC 3512 ] 10. Sabitha Ramamurthy and Ors. vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhaya [Crl.A.No.950 of 2006 Supreme Court of India dated 13.09.2006] 11. S.K.Alagh vs. State of U.P. And Ors. [ AIR 2008 SC 1731 ] 12. Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane [ (2015) 12 SCC 781 ] 13. S.K.Shukla vs. State of M.P. [MANU/MP/0272/2018] 14. I.Hemant Kumar Das and other vs. The State of Bihar [Criminal Miscellaneous No.905 of 2018 Patna High Court dated 21.08.2018] 15. Kashish Gupta and Ors. vs. City Public Prosecutor [MANU/TN/0659/2020] 16. K. Suresh vs. State and Ors. [2012(2) MLJ (Crl) 22] 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant mainly contended that only on the false representation made by the Petitioners herein the goods were supplied and though the earlier cheques were dishonoured, thereafter there was a representation once again, and again they issued cheques which were also dishonoured. Hence it is his contention that general proposition that the dispute in civil nature cannot be converted into a criminal case is not applicable to the present case and the very complaint itself clearly indicate the nature of representation and deception played by the Petitioners from the inception. Therefore, at this stage, whether or not there was deception from the inception cannot be seen, the same can be seen only in the evidence. Therefore, at this stage, whether or not there was deception from the inception cannot be seen, the same can be seen only in the evidence. Therefore, it is his contention that only the husband and wife made false representation from the beginning and the allegations in the FIR clearly substantiated the same. Such being the matter the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage. 6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: 1. Vijayander Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [ (2014) 3 SCC 389 ] 2. Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. [ (2012) 7 SCC 621 . 3. Lakshman vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. [ (2019) 9 SCC 677 ] 4. Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. [ (1999) 3 SCC 259 ] 7. FIR has been registered on the basis of the report given by the Defacto Complainant and it is specifically stated that the Defacto Complainant supplied materials only on the promise and assurance given by the Accused. Defacto Complainant has not interested to supply the goods in view of irregular payment by the accused made to believe that payment would be made and three cheques were issued, thereafter, other six cheques were issued by the first Accused. All the cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, FIR has been filed under Section 406 and 420 IPC. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was no deception on the part of the 2nd Accused. She has been implicated in the FIR only in order to get the money. It is to be noted that when the prima facie allegations found in the FIR, initial stage, the Court normally would be slow in quashing the FIR. Though it is stated that there is no deception made by the 2nd accused, the allegation in the FIR indicates that the payments were assured and cheeques were issued and even after dishonour of the previous cheques, thereafter fresh cheques were issued, that also dishonoured. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that whether the deception was present from the inception or deception was at later is the matter of evidence. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that whether the deception was present from the inception or deception was at later is the matter of evidence. However, the prima facie allegations in the FIR indicates that the deception from the very inception can be very easily inferred from various allegations and conduct of the parties by issuing of cheques and dishonour of cheques etc., Hence, it is his contention that merely because the case is of the commercial nature, same cannot be quashed. 10. It is to be noted that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly. In Alpic Finance case (supra) the Honourable Apex Court has held that when the complaint does not disclose element of deception or fraud, the complaint can be quashed. In the same judgment the Apex Court has held that merely because the remedy by way of Civil suit is available, is not an impediment in maintaining a criminal complaint provided the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged. 11. In Inder Mohan Goswami's case (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court has held that when the dispute purely of civil nature the initiation of the criminal proceedings is abuse of process of law. 12. In Paramjeet Batra's case (supra) also the Honourable Apex Court has held that when the dispute is of the civil nature the Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings, otherwise it is abuse of process of law. 13. In International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Material's case (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court has held that mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction. 14. In Rakesh P. Sheth's case (supra) this Court has held that when the complaint filed for recovery of money, the police cannot be transformed into a collection agent particularly when the cheques were dishonoured. 15. In Duraisamy vs. The Inspector of Police [Crl.O.P.No.1128 of 2016 Madras High Court dt.07.06.2021] this Court has held that in a contract in dispute mere non-payment of amount lieu cannot said to be a cheating. 16. In the above cases the Apex Court and this Court have quashed the complaints on the ground that there is no essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 16. In the above cases the Apex Court and this Court have quashed the complaints on the ground that there is no essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC. From the above judgments it is also clear that mere civil proceedings are pending the same itself cannot be a ground to quash the FIR. 17. In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., case (supra) petition has been filed to quash the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act, wherein the Honouable Apex Court has held that unless a specific avement in the complaint that the Director is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, the Director cannot be prosecuted. 18. In Sharad Kumar Sanghi's case (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court has held that when the company has not arrayed as party, criminal proceedings initiated against the Managing Director is not maintainable. 19. This Court also in Kashish Gupta and Ors. Case (Supra) has held that unless the company is arrayed as party to the proceedings, the persons under the capacity of employees of the company cannot be prosecuted and quashed the proceedings. 20. From the above judgments, the Courts are quashed the proceedings when the companies were not arrayed as accused and the allegations primarily targeted the company. In such a situation the company not being made a party and the Directors of the company prosecuted in their individual capacity were relieved from the criminal prosecution. It is not the case in the present FIR. The very allegation of false assurance on payment of money made against the A1 and A2 in their individual capacity. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely the company is not made as a party, it will not absolve the petitioners when the allegation prima facie made against them. 21. Though, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is no evidence to show that there is a deception from the inception, it is relevant to note that whether the deception was present from the inception or developed later is the matter of evidence. What has to be seen in the FIR stage is, whether the allegation attracts the offence or not. The evidentry value of the statements or ingredients cannot be gone into while exercising power under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 22. What has to be seen in the FIR stage is, whether the allegation attracts the offence or not. The evidentry value of the statements or ingredients cannot be gone into while exercising power under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 22. It is relevant to note that in Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar [ (2005) 10 SCC 336 ] the Honourable Apex Court has held that only when there is no material in the FIR that there are deception from the inception or there are no intention to commit cheating, the FIR can be quashed. 23. In Vesa Holdings Private Limited and another vs. State of Kerala and others [ (2015) 8 SCC 293 ] the Honourable Supreme Court has held that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. 24. In Vijayender Kumar's case (supra) the Apex Court has held that merely civil remedy also be available to the informant/complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceedings. 25. In Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel's case (supra) the Honourable Apex Court has held that even there is pendency of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, not a bar for initiating criminal prosecution under section 420 IPC for the same offence. 26. In Rajesh Bajaj case (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest and fraudulent. If the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the court should not hasten to quash the criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. In para 10 of the above judgement, it is held as follows: “10. It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. In para 10 of the above judgement, it is held as follows: “10. It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions. One of the illustrations set out under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code (illustrations f) is worthy of notice now: "(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats." ” 27. Similarly, in Lakshman's case (supra) the Apex Court has held that mere filing of suit for recovery of money and complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act itself is no ground to quash the proceedings in the complaints filed by the Appellant herein and further held that though the contract is of civil nature, if there is an element of cheating and fraud, it is always open for a party in a contract, to prosecute the other side for the offences alleged. 28. From the above judgments it is very clear that merely because the commercial transaction it cannot be generally concluded that no criminal prosecution is maintainable. If the allegation in the FIR prima facie show the implication of the offence, the court cannot interfere the investigation at that stage. On looking of the allegations in the present FIR, as indicated, the allegations are made against both husband and wife on false promise and assurance given from the very inception. It is also indicated that six cheques have been issued on the promise of repayment, however the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, wife also assured and given other cheques. It is also alleged that the very supply itself were made on the promises and assurances by both the parties. That being the allegations, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. [ (1999) 3 SCC 259 ] the allegations targeted against the Petitioners and the validity of the allegations has to be seen only during the investigation. That being the allegations, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. [ (1999) 3 SCC 259 ] the allegations targeted against the Petitioners and the validity of the allegations has to be seen only during the investigation. In such a view of the matter, this Court is of the view that at this stage the quashing of FIR will not arise. 29. In view of the same the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.