JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No.79 of 2021 involving the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners approached the informant to invest Rs.2,00,25,000/- with promise of paying 18% compound interest but cheated and committed criminal breach of trust by not paying the said amount. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing attention of this Court to the supplementary affidavit dated 18.07.2023 that out of the said Rs.2,00,25,000/-, the petitioners have already paid back Rs.1,50,00,000/- as mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the said supplementary affidavit and the same remains undisputed and after that also, the petitioners have paid Rs.15,00,000/-. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh reported in (2005) 13 SCC 699 , paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under:- “6. We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the complaint and the orders of the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Having taken into consideration all the material made available on record by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner are wholly unwarranted. The complaint is an abuse of the process of the court and the proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed. Even if all the averments made in the complaint are taken to be correct, yet the case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Penal Code is not made out. The complaint does not make any averment so as to infer any fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been made by the petitioner pursuant to which the respondent parted with the money. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner does not have the property or that the petitioner was not competent to enter into an agreement to sell or could not have transferred title in the property to the respondent. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner does not have the property or that the petitioner was not competent to enter into an agreement to sell or could not have transferred title in the property to the respondent. Merely because an agreement to sell was entered into which agreement the petitioner failed to honour, it cannot be said that the petitioner has cheated the respondent. No case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 IPC is made out even prima facie. The complaint filed by the respondent and that too at Madhepura against the petitioner, who is a resident of Delhi, seems to be an attempt to pressurise the petitioner for coming to terms with the respondent.” (Emphasis supplied) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as there is no allegation against the petitioners of having deceived the complainant since the beginning of the transaction and more so, as substantial amount of the alleged money taken has in fact, admittedly been paid back by the petitioners to the complainant hence, the offence punishable under Sections 420 or 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 5. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 , paragraph no.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. 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. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners undertake to pay the remaining amount within six months. Hence, it is submitted that the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No.79 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing of the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No.79 of 2021 and submits that the petitioners have paid the money only after the institution of the case. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, it has to be established that the accused had any intention to cheat the victim from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur and Ors. Vs. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur and Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 , para 10 of which reads as under :- “10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [ (2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703])” (Emphasis supplied). 9. It is also a settled principle of law 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 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 , paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under :- 6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx 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) 10. 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) 10. It is also a settled principle of law that in order to establish the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code the following ingredients are to be established :- (i) Mens rea (ii) There must be dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract (iii) The accused dishonestly used or disposed of the property 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property by the petitioners rather the fact is that the petitioners have already refunded substantial amount of money and undertake to refund the remaining money within six months which goes to show that the petitioners had no intention of any misappropriation of the entrusted money. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the said offence is :- (i) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission, (ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and (iii) Such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 . 13. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 . 13. Now coming the facts of the case, there is no allegation of any deception of the opposite party no.2 or his company by the petitioners since the very inception. The only allegation against the petitioners is that after availing the investment amount they were not paying the same. So in the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioners of any dishonest intention at the very inception and also for the absence of other ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned in this judgment, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out either. 14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the entire criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No.79 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 15. Accordingly, the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No.79 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. 16. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.