JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.95 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent and quash the FIR with regard to the petitioner.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.95 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the First Information Report against the petitioner. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto complainant has lent a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- to A1 and A4 during the month of January 2018. Again the second respondent/defacto complainant lent another sum of Rs.12,50,000/- to them. Though they agreed to repay the amount within six months, the amount was not repaid by them. During December 2018, A1 had introduced A2 and A3 to the second respondent/defacto complainant. In the complaint lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant, it is alleged that A1 and A4 informed her that whatever amounts lent by her were invested in the land belonging to A2 and A3 and after completing the development and sale of lands/development of project, the amounts will be repaid to her. During that time, they also demanded Rs.90,00,000/- to complete the project. During January 2019, A1 pledged the jewels of the complainant at Mataji Pawn Broker Shop and got a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- as loan. During 3rd July 2019, A1 to A4 came to the house of the complainant and assured that they would give back Rs.34,50,000/- within three months. They also handed over the documents and project reports relating to the loan. But, as per the assurance, they did not repay the amount, and when the complainant contacted the accused, the accused threatened her with dire consequences. 3. On the above allegations, a case has been registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that the complainant is a professional money lender. She used to lend money and only in that course, the money was lent to A1, A2 and A4. 3. On the above allegations, a case has been registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that the complainant is a professional money lender. She used to lend money and only in that course, the money was lent to A1, A2 and A4. If the complainant is affected due to non-payment of money given by her to any of the accused, she has to invoke jurisdiction of the Civil Court for recovery of money and for civil case, no criminal complaint can be given. 4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the complainant had intentionally given loan of Rs.14,50,000/- and Rs.12,50,000/- on two occasions for the business purposes of A1, A2 and A4. So far as A3 is concerned, even according to the allegations of the complainant, she is no way connected with the transactions made between the complainant, A1, A2 and A4. It is not the case of the complainant that she has also engaged herself along with the accused in any joint business and during that course, she entrusted any valuable property to the accused. The second respondent/defacto complainant intentionally gave a loan for a specific business purpose. The allegations would predominantly show that the violation on the part of the accused to repay the loan amount. So, it is a case based on money transaction. The assurance if any given by the accused to repay the loan amount, if it is not honoured at a later point of time cannot be construed as cheating, The rightful course open to the complainant is to file a civil case for recovery of money. In order to make out an offence under Section 420 of IPC, the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC ought to have been found to be present. Section 415 IPC defines 'cheating' as under:' "Section 415 of IPC:- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation. A dishonest concealment of facts is deception within the meaning of this section." 5. The averments made by the complainant in the complaint would not show that she was fraudulently/dishonestly induced or deceived to deliver the money to the accused. Since the complainant is the professional money lender, her business is to lend money for interest. 6. The fact that the complainant is professional money lender, is not denied. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the lending of money by the complainant to the accused would fall under the offence of cheating. 7. The offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of IPC is defined as under:- "405. Criminal breach of trust:- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust". 8. The said provision cannot be invoked for the allegations that have been made by the complainant in the complaint. It is obviously for the reason that there is no entrustment of any property given by the complainant. However, the prosecution agency has registered the case for the offence under Section 406 of IPC also, as though, the complainant had at any point of time entrusted her properties to the accused. 9. The only allegation that is slightly seen in the line of Section 405 of IPC is that A1 pledged her Jewels with Mataji Pawn Broker Shop during January 2019 and availed a loan of Rs.7,60,000/-. There are no allegations as to when, where and what amount of jewels or what kind of jewels were handed over by the complainant to A1. Though the FIR cannot be an encyclopedia, atleast some basic should be stated in order to make out a case of criminal breach of trust. Unless there are some basic details of entrustment of any specific property with the accused, the complainant cannot claim that the offence of criminal breach of trust, has been committed. 10. Though the FIR cannot be an encyclopedia, atleast some basic should be stated in order to make out a case of criminal breach of trust. Unless there are some basic details of entrustment of any specific property with the accused, the complainant cannot claim that the offence of criminal breach of trust, has been committed. 10. The next offence for which the case registered is for the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC. It is the allegation of the complainant that when she approached the accused and demanded them to give back the money, they threatened her with dire consequences. The above allegation is a formal and generalized allegation and it is not even stated by the complainant when she was called and by whom. The generalized one line allegation about intimidation cannot be taken serious, especially when the predominant allegations are with regard to money transactions. 11. Putting the accused for trial is a waste of time for the accused and no useful purpose would be served. Hence, it is essential for this Court should to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR. 12. The civil transactions between the parties have been given with criminal colour. It has been already discussed at length that the offences are not made out and that there is no prima facie material available on record to make out a criminal case against the petitioner. Hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed. In view of the civil nature of the complaint, the benefit is extended to the other accused as well. 13. In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed and the FIR is quashed in entirety Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.