ORDER : 1. Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 48/2023 registered at Police Station Soorsagar, District Jodhpur for offence under Section 420, 409 & 120B IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan stating therein that on the business offer being given by the accused Pradeep Dixit, Trustee of M/s Rajiv Dixit Memorial Trust, the complainant provided the requisite documents so also a sum of Rs. 1 crore by way of different cheques in the name of the trust. It was agreed that the Trust shall provide the supply of Ayurvedic medicines and also pay the rent of warehouse. It was alleged that after some time, the Trustee stopped the payment of rent and other expenses and stopped the business. Upon contacting, the petitioner refused to pay the amount of rent and return the security amount of Rs. 1 crore. 3. The said complaint was forwarded by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and FIR No. 46/2023 came to be registered at Police Station, Soorsagar, Jodhpur for offence under Section 420, 409 & 120B IPC and investigation commenced. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant’s firm entered into a business agreement with M/s Rajiv Dixit Memorial Trust for supply of Ayurveda medicines, however, the complainant was not taking interest in business and therefore, the business transaction/supply stopped. It is further argued that the entire case is related to business dispute being civil in nature and remedy also lies under Civil law. It is contended that the complainant did not return the stock medicines to the petitioner’s firm and only with a view to harass and pressurize the petitioner, has filed the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Usha Chakraborty and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 2023 Cr. L.R. (SC) 188. Therefore, it is prayed that the FIR No. 46/2023 may be quashed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that offences as alleged by the complainant are prima facie proved after thorough investigation by the police inasmuch the accused in his inquiry note has admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. L.R. (SC) 188. Therefore, it is prayed that the FIR No. 46/2023 may be quashed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that offences as alleged by the complainant are prima facie proved after thorough investigation by the police inasmuch the accused in his inquiry note has admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. 1 crore and entered into an agreement with the complainant also agreed to pay the rent of warehouse but later on did not supply the medicines as agreed by the petitioner’s firm. It is submitted that prima facie case is established against the petitioner, therefore, at this stage, the FIR is not liable to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 Mr. Niranjan Singh, argued that the respondent complainant clearly stated in his complaint the sequence of the events which led to lodging the complaint and the intentions of the accused petitioner which were clear from the inception, which would attract the offences of cheating and misappropriation and prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record. 8. From the perusal of the FIR and material on record, it is revealed that the petitioner’s firm had entered into a business agreement with the complainant’s firm for supply of Ayurvedic medicines. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 1 Crore by different transactions as security money. After some time, the business stopped between the two firms, however, the amount of security was not returned to the complainant. As per inquiry note of accused Pradeep Dixit, he has admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. 1 crore as security amount and he shall return the amount at the earliest. Thus, there is prima-facie case to presume that the petitioner deceived the respondent no. 5 fraudulently or dishonestly and induced him to deliver property and cheated him. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire transaction is of civil nature, therefore, remedy lies under Civil law is concerned, merely because there might be an element of civil dispute between the parties, that by itself does not exclude criminal liability, as the basic ingredients of offence under Sections 420/409 IPC are prima facie made out in the present case. If there is an element of cheating and fraud it is always open for a party, to prosecute the other side for the offences alleged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that it is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined `and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 10. Yet again, Supreme Court, in case of Janta Dal vs. H.S. Choudhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 , while relying on Choudhary Bhajanlal's case (supra), held: “This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Yet again, Supreme Court, in case of Janta Dal vs. H.S. Choudhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 , while relying on Choudhary Bhajanlal's case (supra), held: “This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. This Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, to which both of us were parties have dealt with this question at length and enunciated the law listing out the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing proceedings. We do not, therefore, think it necessary in the present case to extensively deal with the import and intendment of the powers under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code.” 11. In another decision in the case of Pratibha vs. Rameshwari Devi and Others, JT 2007 (11) 122, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court cannot go beyond the allegations made in the F.I.R or rely upon extraneous consideration. For the purpose of finding out the commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court is only required to look into the allegations made in the complaint or the F.I.R. 12. In another case of N. Soundaram vs. P.K. Pounraj and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 616 , Supreme Court, while reiterating the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) on scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. held: “It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice [See State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal]. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. [See MCD vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi]. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance.” [See Vinod Raghuvanshi vs. Ajay Arora] 13. In the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 Cri. L.J. 2419, Hon’ble Apex Court, on scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in Para 23 (xii) and (xv) observed as under: “(xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. (xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 14. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 14. Although it is a well settled legal position that for an offence of cheating to be made out, it is to be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very inception i.e. when promise or representation was made and mere not keeping the promise later on does not amount such an offence, but at the same time, it is also a settled legal position that subsequent conduct of the accused is also relevant fact to infer whether the accused was having such an intention at the time when the offence was committed. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case so also in the light of the judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, no case for quashing of FIR No. 46/2023 registered at Police Station Soorsagar, District Jodhpur is made out. Hence, the misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.