JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the First Information Report being Gumla P.S. Case No.261 of 2022 as well as the entire criminal proceedings thereof instituted for the offences alleged to have been committed punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506, 406, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code; which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No.1 entered into an agreement with the informant, as per which the petitioner took Rs.15,00,000/- as security money which was not carrying any interest and in consideration for the same the petitioner No.1 had to hand over the petrol-pump run by her to the informant on rent for four years eleven months but the petitioner No.1 neither handed over the petrol-pump nor returned the security money and the petitioner No.2 is the husband of the petitioner No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of The Sai Appliances & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.4285 of 2022 dated 14.08.2023 wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. The State of Punjab & Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 paragraph-13 of which reads as under:- “13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which FIR was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court.” and submits that at best the allegations made against the petitioners give rise to a breach of contract but does not give rise to the cause for criminal prosecution of cheating and criminal breach of trust and in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 , paragraph No.6 of which reads as under :- 6. Xxxxx It is well settled 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. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits 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 and as there is no allegation of any deception played at the very inception, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Wajid & Another vs. Sate of U.P. & Others reported in (2023) 0 Supreme (SC) 690 paragraph-30 of which reads as under:- “30. Xxxx In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. xxxX” and submits that the allegation of voluntarily causing hurt against the petitioner No.2 is only an ornamental one and in the absence of any allegation of any alarm being caused in the mind of the complainant, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 6. Hence, it is submitted that the First Information Report being Gumla P.S. Case No.261 of 2022 as well as the entire criminal proceedings thereof which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the First Information Report being Gumla P.S. Case No.261 of 2022 as well as the entire criminal proceedings thereof which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla and submit that the material in the record shows that the ingredients of each of the offences for which the F.I.R has been registered, is available in the record. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner No.1 that she had any intention of deception at the very inception of the agreement entered into between the parties. In the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 9. In the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in the facts of the case and at best the allegations made out is breach of promise and agreement but does not constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust in the absence of any allegation of criminal misappropriation of the property entrusted. In the absence of any alarm being caused in the mind of the informant by the acts of the petitioner No.2, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out and this Court keeping in view the nature of allegation; is of the considered view that the offences punishable under Section 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the allegation of the same has been made ornamentally to make the case serious. 10. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where in the interest of justice, the First Information Report being Gumla P.S. Case No.261 of 2022 as well as the entire criminal proceedings thereof which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the First Information Report being Gumla P.S. Case No.261 of 2022 as well as the entire criminal proceedings thereof which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, is quashed and set aside. 12. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.