JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner-accused is Director of Ravi Surya Developers Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act and involved in the business of building construction. The petitioner assigned the construction work along with building construction materials to complainant-respondent No.2, who is proprietor of Asha Steel Fabrication. According to FIR, which is sought to be quashed herein, the complainant started construction work as agreed between the parties from 1.2.2019 for construction of Ananta Spa and Resorts Gatajaldhari, Jaipur. The construction work continued till March, 2021. Thereafter the complainant contacted the petitioner to make the payment of the work done till date. The petitioner evaded payment on excuse of verification of bills. All of a sudden, the petitioner assigned the work to some other contractor and did not make payment of due amount to the complainant. The complainant again contacted the petitioner and petitioner threatened complainant to leave the site and not to go there. Moreover, the petitioner did not allow the complainant to take away his machinery etc. kept on the work site for completion of work. Allegation is that the petitioner grabbed about Rs. 3 crores of the complainant. 2. On the allegation aforesaid, FIR No. 0411 dated 18.12.2021 was registered with Jamwa Ramgarh Police Station in the District of Jaipur Rural which is under challenge in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Dr. Abhinav Sharma with Mr. Virendra Prajapati, assisted by Ms. Karishma Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by leading case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 as the impugned FIR is manifestly attended with malafides with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and with a view to harass the petitioner for real dispute of accounting between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that there is material on record to substantiate that on different occasions payment of bill amount, to the complainant, was made and last payment was made on 26.3.2021. Learned counsel further submits that there is material on record to substantiate that on different occasions payment of bill amount, to the complainant, was made and last payment was made on 26.3.2021. When the petitioner noticed that the complainant is using inferior quality of material for construction work and in spite of warning in the nature of drawing attention of the complainant to the aforesaid lapses, the complainant did not mend, therefore, the petitioner asked the complainant to discontinue the work because building construction is not a temporary arrangement and inferior quality of materials would have caused loss in longer term. Learned counsel next contends that ingredients of none of the offences mentioned in the FIR i.e. under Section 420, 406, 384 and 120-B IPC are made out on bare perusal of FIR, hence the same is fit to be quashed. Learned counsel submits that the respondent complainant has raised total 17 bills, the petitioner made payment to Mr. Jagdish, the agent of the complainant on 6.2.2021 vide receipt at Page 126. The same receipt would reveal that the rest due amount was paid on 1.7.2021. Prior to that, against bill dated 16.10.2020 of 6 crores and odd, Jagdish received major portion of the bill and it is mentioned on Page 111 that Rs. 35 lac and odd remained due. The payment receipt at page 130 dated 26.3.2021 would reveal that on that date also payment against bill raised was made and only Rs. 5 lac remained due. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner runs against allegation of any dishonest intention at any point of time. 4. Learned counsel for the private respondents Mr. Umang Gupta, Mr. Arpit Mathur, Mr. Ashish Guwalani with Ms. Priyal Bohra contends that civil remedy is not a ground for quashing of the criminal prosecution if the ingredients of cognizable offence are disclosed in the FIR. The fraudulent and dishonest intention of the petitioner would be evident from the fact that on mid-way, the continuing work from the complainant was snatched and assigned to some other person causing huge loss by payment of unused labour, purchased materials and hired machinery. Moreover, the petitioner dishonestly retained the building material and other machinery of the complainant kept at the site and did not allow the complainant to take the same away. 5. Moreover, the petitioner dishonestly retained the building material and other machinery of the complainant kept at the site and did not allow the complainant to take the same away. 5. To counter this assertion of the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner has produced a bunch of papers showing that staff of complainant took away all the tools and materials from the work site on different dates under a proper process by giving a receipt of the same and getting a gate pass of exit of those materials which are available on record. 6. The moot question for consideration before this Court is whether the FIR discloses ingredients of cognizable offences as alleged. On bare perusal of the FIR, it is evident that there is no averment of entrustment of any property to the petitioner which was criminally misappropriated, hence the ingredient to prove the offence under Section 405 IPC which is punishable under Section 406 IPC is missing. In Ramaswami Nadar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 56 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the word entrustment in the Section is very important unless there is entrustment, there can be no offence under the Section. 7. To prove an offence of cheating, there must be fraudulent and dishonest inducement. The averments made in the FIR that no payment was made till March, 2021 stands prima facie falsified by the document produced on record disclosing the fact that on different dates, payment against bill raised was being made by the petitioner though some times, full payment was not made but from the act of the petitioner it cannot be gathered that the petitioner ever had dishonest and fraudulent intention. Moreover, the petitioner has clearly averred that the petitioner is always ready for accounting and payment of due amount. Therefore, the offence punishment under Section 420 IPC too is not made out. 8. Though there is allegation of causing threat, however due to that threat no one was forced to make any payment of extortion money. Since there is no delivery of property in pursuance of threat or coercion, no case of extortion as defined under Section 383 IPC is made out. In Dhananjay Vs. State of Bihar & ors., (2007) 14 SCC 768 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated as under: "A distinction between theft and extortion is well known. Since there is no delivery of property in pursuance of threat or coercion, no case of extortion as defined under Section 383 IPC is made out. In Dhananjay Vs. State of Bihar & ors., (2007) 14 SCC 768 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated as under: "A distinction between theft and extortion is well known. Whereas offence of extortion is carried out by over-powering the will of the owner; in commission of an offence of theft the offender’s intention is always to take without that person’s consent." Evidently, parting with the property is must for commission of the offence of extortion. There is no averemnt in the FIR that due to threat put by the petitioner, the complainant parted away with any of his property or valuable security. 9. When ingredient of substantive offences alleged is missing, a case for conspiracy to commit these offences would automatically vanish, hence no case under Section 120-B IPC is made out from bare perusal of the FIR. 10. Since the FIR does not disclose ingredients of commission of any cognizable offence, the criminal prosecution is abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the complainant has attempted to get the civil dispute resolved by adopting recourse to criminal proceedings which cannot be allowed, hence the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed and this petition stands allowed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.