JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Purnendu Sharan, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 233 of 2009, corresponding to T.R. No. 67 of 2013 including order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2009 whereby cognizance has been taken under section 417 of the I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Godda. 3. The complaint has been filed alleging therein that the complainant has purchased one Mahindra Bolero on 14.06.2006 bearing its Registration No. JH-17B-0494 finance from Magma Scharchi Finance Limited and the delivery of the said vehicle was made to him from Dhanbad against which he has paid the first installment of Rs. 1,26,000/- and thereafter the remaining installment of Rs. 12,600/- were paid by the complainant according to the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement. It was further alleged that the complainant has already paid Rs. 4 lacs to the opposite parties in terms of the agreement whereas the price of the Bolero was Rs. 4,85,000/-. The complainant has also alleged that the accused persons have also misappropriated Rs. 8,000/- paid by the complainant since the receipt has been issued in the name of Ganesh Sah in place of Ganesh Mahto i.e. complainant. The complainant has further alleged that the aforesaid vehicle was snatched by the accused persons with the help of the criminals and the accused persons handed over a copy of inventory to the complainant in spite of his protest. The complainant has also sent legal notice on 10.12.2008 and 04.03.2009 but the accused persons have not replied the same and thus have committed offence under sections 406, 420 and 384 of the I.P.C. 4. Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Bolero vehicle was financed by the company namely, Magma Fincorp Ltd. and the petitioner happens to be Branch Officer of the said company. He further submits that a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- was sanctioned by the said company for purchase of Bolero vehicle. Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Bolero vehicle was financed by the company namely, Magma Fincorp Ltd. and the petitioner happens to be Branch Officer of the said company. He further submits that a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- was sanctioned by the said company for purchase of Bolero vehicle. He further submits that O.P. No. 2 failed to pay instalment on time and subsequently, E.M.I. was not coming the vehicle was repossessed by the petitioners in terms of hire purchase agreement and invoice has been issued in the name of Ganesh Sah whereas O.P. No. 2 is Ganesh Kumar Gupta. He further submits that the allegation is that the said receipt was issued in the name of Ganesh Sah not in the name of O.P. No. 2- Ganesh Kumar Gupta. He submits that there is allegation that the vehicle was forcibly taken by the petitioners however, the learned court has not taken cognizance under the relevant section with regard to said allegation and cognizance has been taken only under section 417 of the I.P.C. He submits that the case of cheating is not made out . To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of “Vijay Kumar Ghai Vs. State of West Bengal & Others” reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 wherein para 31, 32 and 38 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “31. Section 415 IPC defines “cheating” which reads as under: “415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.” The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are: 1. Deception of any person 2. Deception of any person 2. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person— (i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were no so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 32. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 38. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. However, as held by this Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is criminal offence, is a fine one. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand, complaint filed by Respondent 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants.” 5. On the other hand, Mr. Purnendu Sharan, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that there are allegation of cheating and receipt was not issued in the name of O.P. No.2. He submits that this Court may not interfere as the trial is going on. 6. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court after looking into Solemn Affirmation as well as enquiry witnesses has taken cognizance. 7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. Admittedly, the said complaint was filed alleging therein that Bolero in question was taken by the accused persons forcibly. The Court finds that so far as this allegation is concerned, the learned court has not taken cognizance under the relevant section of this allegation. Accordingly, it appears that said allegation is falsified and if this allegation is false then looking into the averments of the complaint petition, it transpires that for civil wrong criminal case has been filed. The Court finds that so far as this allegation is concerned, the learned court has not taken cognizance under the relevant section of this allegation. Accordingly, it appears that said allegation is falsified and if this allegation is false then looking into the averments of the complaint petition, it transpires that for civil wrong criminal case has been filed. A sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- was financed by the company in favour of the complainant. The complainant failed to pay certain amount of E.M.I. thereafter in view of hire purchase agreement vehicle was taken over by the company in question. The hire purchase agreement is on record wherein Clause 14 speaks events of default, rights and remedies thereon and in which one of the condition is that the vehicle in question can be taken by Magma Fincorp Ltd. Further if the receipt was wrongly issued in the name of Ganesh Sah it was incumbent upon the complainant to approach the said company for correction. 8. Further there is no intention of cheating from the very beginning by the petitioners as well as by the company. Hire purchase agreement suggests that there is breach of contract and if there is breach of contract that is not in itself criminal offence and to raise civil liability of damages. The case of the petitioner is fully covered with Vijay Kumar Ghai (supra). 9. In view of above reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 233 of 2009, corresponding to T.R. No. 67 of 2013 including order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2009, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Godda, are quashed and set aside. Pending I.A., if any, stands, disposed of.