JUDGMENT : 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 entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.05.2022 passed in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.241 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 323, 341, 504, 506, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the petitioner and took cognizance of the said offences and has also directed for issuance of summons upon filing of requisites by the complainant and now the case is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused person who is his nephew, has induced the complainant and by way of cheating, made him to pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the co-accused for securing a favourable judgment from the court in a case instituted by the co-accused against the complainant and thereafter an agreement was prepared. The co-accused issued a cheque of Rs.1,60,000/- but the spelling of ‘Lakh’ was mentioned as ‘One Lakhs’, hence, the said cheque was dishonoured. It is alleged that on 10.06.2022 the co-accused, took the complainant to his house and the petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to him and wrongfully restrained him and the petitioner committed theft of Rs.12,000/- from the complainant. On the basis of the Complaint Case No.1837 of 2021 being forwarded to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., Telco P.S. Case No.141 of 2021 was registered and police took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted Final Form by mentioning that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and did not send up the petitioner and the co-accused for trial. After completion of the investigation, police submitted Final Form by mentioning that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and did not send up the petitioner and the co-accused for trial. Upon submission of Final Form, Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.241 of 2022 was filed by the complainant and in his statement on solemn affirmation, the complainant has supported his case and one enquiry witness was also examined who also supported the case of the prosecution and on the basis of the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur observed that there is sufficient material in the record to proceed further in the case as prima facie case is made out and took cognizance of the offences as already indicated above and ordered for issuance of summons inter alia against the petitioner directing the complainant to file requisites for summons against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in this case; which is approbated by the police by way of filing of the Final Form, mentioning that the case is of civil nature. The petitioner has no relationship with the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 paragraph-18 of which reads as under:- “18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilized the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.” And submits that except the bald allegation that the petitioner did not make the payment to the complainant there is no allegation that the petitioner dishonestly disposed of the property entrusted to the co-accused in some way or dishonestly retained the same. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.S. Madhanagopal & Another vs. K. Lalitha reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 2030 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under:- “11. The complaint also fails to disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of wrongful restraint. In order to attract application of Section 341 which provides for punishment for wrongful restraint, it has to be proved that there was obstruction by the accused; (ii) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed and (iii) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. The obstructor must intend or know or would have reason to believe that the means adopted would cause obstruction to the complainant.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation that the petitioner was intending or knowing or had the reason to believe that the means adopted would cause obstruction to the complainant. Hence, in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168 paragraph-15 of which reads as under:- “15. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168 paragraph-15 of which reads as under:- “15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.” And submits that it is a settled principle of law that mere breach of trust cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction and in this case there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was having any dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-6 of which reads as under:- “6. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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.” 8. To buttress his submission that neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 paragraphs-11 and 13 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 406 of IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that the respondent no. 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, the respondent no. 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognizes 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. 13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 of IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 ). In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached the respondent no. 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 ). In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached the respondent no. 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, the respondent no. 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 and submits that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture, but the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence and if such a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as happened in that case; the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahmood Ali & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 691 and submits that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Hence, it is submitted that entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.05.2022 passed in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.241 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.05.2022 passed in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.241 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offence of theft of Rs.12,000/- from the pocket of the complainant/informant besides there is allegation against the petitioner of being in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons voluntarily causing hurt and wrongfully restraining the complainant. Moreover, there is allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offence of criminal intimidation as also intentionally insulting the complainant to provoke breach of peace. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 next submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of inducing the complainant/informant by way of cheating to part with Rs.1,60,000/- by paying the same to co-accused to obtain a favourable order from the Judicial Magistrate which amounts to interference with justice delivery system. There is no dispute that the complainant has paid Rs.1,60,000/- to the co-accused and the same has not been paid back to the complainant. Hence, though the allegation of cheating and criminal breach of trust is basically against the co-accused still in view of the roles assigned to the petitioner of being instrumental and influencing the complainant being victimized by the co-accused, the offence with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out against the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed theft of Rs.12,000/- from the informant and of voluntarily causing hurt to him and wrongfully restraining him. 13. 12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed theft of Rs.12,000/- from the informant and of voluntarily causing hurt to him and wrongfully restraining him. 13. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of N.S. Madhanagopal & Another vs. K. Lalitha (supra) is concerned, in the facts of that case, the land owner and the security and the workers prohibited the victim of that case from entering into their premises but here in this case, the facts of this case is entirely different. Here, the allegation is that the complainant was wrongfully restrained in the house of the petitioner and was not allowed to go out and further voluntarily hurt was caused to him; besides intimidating him criminally. Hence, the ratio of N.S. Madhanagopal & Another vs. K. Lalitha (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, is not applicable, in the facts of this case. 14. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Mahmood Ali & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others (supra) and for that matter the judgment of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others (supra), is concerned, no doubt they are the settled principle of law, but the facts of those cases are different from the facts of this case as in this case there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed theft of Rs.12,000/- from the complainant/informant. The contention of the petitioner is that the allegation against petitioner is false or for that matter he has never seen the complainant/informant, certainly the same is a defence which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case but the same is not a sufficient ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding by holding a mini trial and arriving at a conclusion while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 15. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra), Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra), Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another and Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra) are concerned, no doubt they are settled principles of law so far as the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned. In this case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of inducing the victim by way of cheating and making him to pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the co-accused person and the main allegation of the offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is against the co-accused Pankaj Kumar Agrawal and the petitioner has been arrayed in this case with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; for being in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person, having committed the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. It is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ought not stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 . 17. After carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is prima facie material in the record; which if accepted to be true in its entirety, the offences for which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate is made out against the petitioner. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.05.2022 passed in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.241 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, be quashed and set aside. 18. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.05.2022 passed in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.241 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, be quashed and set aside. 18. Accordingly, the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.05.2022 passed in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.241 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur is rejected and consequently this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. 19. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., interim relief granted to the petitioners vide order dated 22.08.2022 stands vacated. 20. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.