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 to quash the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate –XIII, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie sufficient material to call upon the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issue of summons to the petitioners. Prayer has also been made for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 entered into an agreement with the petitioners; for sale of the land of the petitioners to the opposite party no.2-complainant, on 03.08.2020. The petitioners received an advance amount of Rs.14,51,051/- only. The total consideration amount of the property was fixed at Rs.5,25,00,000/- only. It is agreed to between the parties that the sale deed was to be executed by 28.02.2021. It was further agreed to between the parties that the second party to the said agreement i.e. the complainant-opposite party no.2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition shall forfeit the advance paid on failure to pay the balance consideration amount by 28.02.2021 or any mutually agreed date. There is no material in the record to suggest that any mutually agreed date other than 28.02.2021 was agreed to between the parties in consonance of terms of the said agreement. The complainant filed the complaint petition alleging inter-alia that during the subsistence of the agreement between the petitioners and the complainant-opposite party no.2; the petitioners entered into another agreement with some other persons for selling the said property for Rs.7,00,00,000/- and it is alleged that the petitioners also threatened the complainant-opposite party no.2 when the complainant-opposite party no.2 objected to the petitioners entering into agreement with the third person; during the subsistence of the agreement between the complainant and the petitioners. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the contents of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the two inquiry witnesses, observed that they have corroborated the version of the complainant to some extent and observed that prima facie sufficient materials are available on the record to call upon the petitioners to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed issue of summons to the petitioners. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and 12 days after filing the complaint, the complainant-opposite party no.2 has also filed Original Title Suit No. 357 of 2021 but suppressed the same in his statement under solemn affirmation. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Judicial Magistrate without any application of mind in a very cryptic and mechanical manner, misconceived and misinterpreted the present dispute and has illegally observed that there is prima facie case for the petitioners, to face the trial. 5. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 , para -13 of which reads as under:- “13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8) “It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8) “It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is essentially of civil nature which has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate –XIII, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie sufficient material to call upon the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue of summons to the petitioners and also the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate –XIII, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie sufficient material to call upon the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed issue of summons to the petitioners and also the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rashida Kamaluddin Syed & Anr. Vs. Shaikh Saheblal Mardan (Dead) through LRS. & Anr., reported in (2007) 3 SCC 548 , para -27 of which reads as under:- “27. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rashida Kamaluddin Syed & Anr. Vs. Shaikh Saheblal Mardan (Dead) through LRS. & Anr., reported in (2007) 3 SCC 548 , para -27 of which reads as under:- “27. Finally, the contention that a civil suit is filed by the complainant and is pending has also not impressed us. If a civil suit is pending, an appropriate order will be passed by the competent court. That, however, does not mean that if the accused have committed any offence, jurisdiction of criminal court would be ousted. Both the proceedings are separate, independent and one cannot abate or defeat the other.” That mere filing of a civil suit by the complainant will not oust the jurisdiction of the criminal courts and both the proceedings are separate, independent and one cannot abate or defeat the other. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also relied upon the Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 02.08.2021 in Cr.M.P. No. 3762 of 2019 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, reported in 2019 (2) JLJR (SC) 163 and observed that before summoning the accused, the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it and for issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of materials on record and the Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of case and not to determine the adequacy of evidence of holding the accused guilty at the time of taking cognizance. It is then submitted that the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406/420/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality by holding that prima facie materials are available for the petitioners to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality by holding that prima facie materials are available for the petitioners to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. 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 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) 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 will not amount to cheating. 8. It is also a settled principle of law that if the property entrusted to an accused is used by him, mere retention of that property would not amount to dishonest misappropriation of the property as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 , paragraph no. 11 of which reads as under:- “11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. 11 of which reads as under:- “11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment. (Emphasis supplied) 9. 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. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property by the petitioner. The only allegation is that the petitioners have entered into an agreement with someone else other than the complainant. There is no dispute that there exist a written agreement between the petitioners and the complainant according to which the remaining consideration amount was to be paid by 28.02.2021. There is no material in the record to suggest that the parties have ever agreed to change the date of payment of such amount to any other mutually agreed date other than 28.02.2021. There is no dispute that the complainant has not paid the remaining consideration amount to the petitioners on or before 28.02.2021. There is no material in the record to suggest that the parties have ever agreed to change the date of payment of such amount to any other mutually agreed date other than 28.02.2021. There is no dispute that the complainant has not paid the remaining consideration amount to the petitioners on or before 28.02.2021. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the contents of the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses even accepted to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 11. 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 . 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation of any deception of the complainant-opposite party no.2 by any of the petitioners since the very inception; which is a sine qua non for making out the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Even if the allegations made in the complaint is treated to be true, as per the same, the petitioners long after entering into the agreement with the complainant negotiated with someone else for sale of the said property at a higher price; then the price for which the agreement entered into with the complainant. Even if the allegations made in the complaint is treated to be true, as per the same, the petitioners long after entering into the agreement with the complainant negotiated with someone else for sale of the said property at a higher price; then the price for which the agreement entered into with the complainant. 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 the ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code; as mentioned above 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. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the said offence are as follows:- (i) The accused intentionally insulted someone (ii) The accused thereby intended to give him provocation (iii) The accused knew that it was likely that such provocation would cause that person to commit a breach of peace or to commit any other offence. 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, the threatening alleged to have been given by the petitioners is that the petitioners told the complainant that the complainant should not teach the petitioners the provisions of law. Certainly such alleged utterances allegedly having been made by the petitioners; even if accepted to be true in its entirety, still in the considered opinion of this Court, the same cannot be termed to be intentionally insulting the complainant or anybody. Neither there is any allegation that such utterances were intended to give any provocation by which the complainant could have breached the peace or committed any other offence; nor such utterances can be said to intended to give any provocation. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses even if are accepted to be true in their entirety, in the absence of the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code; as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 15. 15. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount of abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate –XIII, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie sufficient material to call upon the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue of summons to the petitioners; as also the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 16. Accordingly, the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate –XIII, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie sufficient material to call upon the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue of summons to the petitioners and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. 17. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 18. In view of disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, the interim order granted earlier stands vacated.