JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY 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 entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 of IPC pending in the court of learned JMFC, Jamshedpur as well as the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Jamshedpur whereby and where under, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC against the petitioner. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Project Head of Kalinganagar unit of JUSCO, entrusted some work to be done by the complainant, but did not make the payment for the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Chief D.M., (Odisha Business) in the Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Limited (TATA STEEL UISL) commonly known as JUSCO. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this complaint has been filed after an inordinate delay of eight years without any plausible reason and the co-accused General Manager (EPC) JUSCO and the Purchase Head, JUSCO are non-existent designations of the company. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the bill of Rs. 3,44,404/-, a sum of Rs. 3,39,965/-has been paid to the complainant and against the bill of 28,32,783/-a sum of Rs. 25,93,314/-has been paid to the complainant through RTGS and cheque and the petitioner is claiming outstanding dues on the basis of an inflated claim. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the dispute between the parties is civil dispute and no offence punishable under section 420 or 406 of IPC is made out and the order of the learned Magistrate is a non-speaking order. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the dispute between the parties is civil dispute and no offence punishable under section 420 or 406 of IPC is made out and the order of the learned Magistrate is a non-speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as admitted by the Enquiry Witnesses No. 4 namely Rajesh Kaibarta and Enquiry Witnesses No. 5 namely Santosh @ Prem Shankar, the work was allotted by the JUSCO, which is a body corporate being a company incorporated under the Companies Act but the said company has not been arrayed as an accused and without the petitioner having committed any overt act; only to harass the petitioner, he has been arrayed as an accused. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373 , para 8 of which, reads as under:- “8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Nonpayment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus: “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 wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of trust’. Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any statement in that behalf has been made.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that it is a settled principle of law that when the dispute between the parties, is essentially a civil dispute, non payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. 7. learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane reported in (2015) 12 SCC 781 , para 11 of which, reads as under:- “11. In the case at hand as the complainant's initial statement would reflect, the allegations are against the Company, the Company has not been made a party and, therefore, the allegations are restricted to the Managing Director. As we have noted earlier, allegations are vague and in fact, principally the allegations are against the Company. There is no specific allegation against the Managing Director. When a company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened under certain statutes. It has been so held by a three-Judge Bench in [Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 350 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 241] in the context of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that principally the allegations are against the company and the company has not been arrayed as a party, hence, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened upon the petitioner under certain statutes. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Akhtar Shakeel v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in Cr.Appeal No. (S) 217 of 2020, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. (S) 8483 of 2020 dated 03.02.2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that one should not lose sight of the fact, that the FIR has been lodged long after the limitation to file a suit for recovery of money dues has expired. reported in Cr.Appeal No. (S) 217 of 2020, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. (S) 8483 of 2020 dated 03.02.2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that one should not lose sight of the fact, that the FIR has been lodged long after the limitation to file a suit for recovery of money dues has expired. It therefore, very legitimately leads to the inference that the institution of the criminal prosecution was basically to overcome the bar of limitation in preferring any money claim and continuation of criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.08.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 9. Learned Special PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently, opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.08.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021 and submit that there is direct allegation against the petitioner being responsible for not paying the money and offence punishable under Section 406, 420 is made out and hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. 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 settled 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. 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. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case; the fact remains undisputed that the petitioner has paid major chunk of the bills raised by the complainan and the allegation is basically of civil nature and the only allegation that the petitioner got some work done by the complainant but did not pay for the same and the fact remains that as stated by the Enquiry Witness no. 4 and 5, it is the JUSCO, which awarded the work to the complainant and no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner being Project Head and what role he played, in getting the alleged work done by the complainant and non-payment of the money. Basically, the dispute is of under payment or non-payment of the price of good and services rendered by the informant to the company of the petitioner, so in the absence of any other ingredients essential to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420, 406 of IPC, even if the entire allegation made in the complaint, the statement of the enquiry witness and the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant is accepted to be true, in its entirety, still in the considered opinion of this court, neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is made out, more so, when the complaint is filed after a delay of more than seven years and continuation of criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. 12. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts, this court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.08.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.08.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 67 of 2021 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 14. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and accordingly, the interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.