JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned Senior counsel for the O.P.no.2 and Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, the learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 7.8.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No.43 of 2010 whereby the learned court of Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur has been pleased to dismiss the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order taking cognizance dated 7.9.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur, in connection with P.C.R.Case No.194 of 2009 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakaur. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the accused person approached the complainant to give him financial assistance of Rs.3 lac for the treatment of his wife at Calcutta and on 8th day of August, 2008 (Saturday) the accused person reached in the house of complainant in village Choukidhab in the morning at about 10 AM and requested in presence of the witnesses to the complainant to help him by providing Rs.3 lac for treatment of his wife and it was very urgent for the said purpose and the above amount will be returned to the complainant within one month. Out of the loan amount of Rs.3 lac, the petitioner has returned Rs.50,000/- and assured the complainant to return the rest Rs.2,50,000/- within four to five months time with eleven per cent fixed deposit interest. It is alleged that knowingly and intentionally with the malafide intention of deceiving, the complainant induced him to deliver the cash amount of Rs.3 lacs and out of the said amount Rs.50,000/- has been paid and refused to pay the rest amount and thus the accused persons has cheated the complainant and is liable to be prosecuted under section 420 of the IPC. 4. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was Junior Engineer in the Rural Engineering Organization and the O.P.No.2 was the complainant and he was a petty contractor. He further submits that for treatment of his wife the petitioner has taken loan of Rs.3 lacs and he has returned a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the allegation is that Rs.2,50,000/- has not been returned. He further submits that for treatment of his wife the petitioner has taken loan of Rs.3 lacs and he has returned a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the allegation is that Rs.2,50,000/- has not been returned. He further submits that in view of section 415 of the IPC the intention from the very beginning is one of the ingredient of cheating to punish under section 420 of the IPC which is lacking in the case in hand. He further submits that in paragraph no.2 of the complaint petition itself it has been recorded that earlier also the petitioner has taken loan and has returned the amount to the complainant. He submits that from the very beginning the intention is not there of constituting offence under cheating and it is not made out. To buttress his such argument he has relied in the case of “Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat”, (2019) 9 SCC 148 . Paragraph no.13 of the said judgment is quoted below: “13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 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 [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786].) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 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.” 5. On the other hand, Mr. 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.” 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shastri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the learned court has taken cognizance after perusing the solemn affirmation as well as the evidence of the enquiry witness and thereafter has taken cognizance and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, the learned Sr. Advocate submits that the petitioner has not returned Rs.2,50,000/-, thus, case of cheating is made out. He further submits that revision petition dismissed and this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable. 7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record including the complaint petition as well as the order taking cognizance and the revisional order. It is an admitted fact that by way of by way of loan the petitioner has taken a sum of Rs.3 lacs as has been alleged in the complaint petition and returned Rs.50,000/- and the allegation is that he has not returned Rs.2,50,000/-. In paragraph no.2 of the complaint petition it has been stated that earlier also he has taken the amount and has returned the said amount. There is no allegation that from the very beginning the petitioner has the intention of cheating the complainant and this aspect of the matter has been decided in the case of “Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat” (supra) which is relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further looking into the order taking cognizance it transpires that the learned trial court has not given the reason as to what are the prima facie materials against the petitioner for taking cognizance. It is well settled that for passing the order of cognizance a detailed order is not required to be passed however what are the prima facie materials are there are required to be disclosed in the order taking cognizance which is lacking in the case in hand. It is well settled that for passing the order of cognizance a detailed order is not required to be passed however what are the prima facie materials are there are required to be disclosed in the order taking cognizance which is lacking in the case in hand. The learned revisional court has only on the ground that revision is not maintainable if the case is made out, has rejected the revision petition which is also not in accordance with law and the Court finds that the very ingredient of section 415 IPC which is punishment under section 420 IPC is not made out against the petitioner as intention to cheat from the beginning is not there. It is well settled that if the court finds that injustice is done petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is maintainable even after dismissal of revision petition. 8. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R.Case No.194 of 2009 pending before the leraned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakaur is quashed. 9. Cr.M.P. No. 2129 of 2012 stands allowed and disposed of. 10. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.