JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ashwini Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 04.10.2010 passed in connection with Case No. C/1-Case No. 2012 of 2010, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 3. The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein that the complainant purchased L& T (P.C. 300) Poclan Machine on finance by L& T Finance and the complainant was paying the installment but failed to pay the installment for 7 months due to which there was re-schedulement between the parties and the complainant was to pay Rs. 14,50,000/- in two installments and first installment of Rs. 9,50,000/- was to be paid on or before 15.05.2010 while second installment of Rs. 5,00,000/- was to be paid on or before 30.06.2010. It was further alleged that the said poclan was delivered two months late and while it was returning from Chakia Motihari to Jamshedpur by Trailer No. NL 01D 2941 and as soon as it came to Koderma Ghati, some miscreants chased the trailer and on the point of pistol they snatched the said trailer at Rajauli and for that one case has been filed against the miscreants before the court of learned C.J.M., Koderma. The snatching has done as per the direction of Managing Director by hiring gundas and the accused persons have violated the terms and conditions prior to payment of second instalment. It was further alleged that the complainant has paid Rs. 32,46,000/- out of Rs. 67,74,000/-. 4. Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court has taken cognizance under section 420 of the I.P.C. on the alleged allegation made in complaint. He further submits that the complainant opted for having his finance from L & T Finance and accordingly hypothecation agreement was entered into and the said fact is duly admitted. He further submits that as per the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs. 89,98,000/- in 35 equal monthly installments of Rs. 2,47,000/- each commencing from 11.10.2008 and ending on 11.08.2011 and the complainant failed to pay the same. He further submits that on 23.06.2010 an amount of Rs. He further submits that as per the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs. 89,98,000/- in 35 equal monthly installments of Rs. 2,47,000/- each commencing from 11.10.2008 and ending on 11.08.2011 and the complainant failed to pay the same. He further submits that on 23.06.2010 an amount of Rs. 21,87,414/- excluding overdue charges, cheque bounce charges and future unpaid loan installment was due and having left with no option and after exhausting all means to collect the outstanding dues, the company exercised the power under Clause 13 of the Agreement and repossessed the vehicle on 24.06.2010 in accordance with law. He submits that in the entire complaint the allegation is made that some miscreants took the vehicle on the point of pistol for that case was registered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Koderma. He further submits that based on that complaint, the case was filed in Jamshedpur which is lacking territorial jurisdiction. 5. On the multiple F.I.R. for the same occurrence, learned counsel for the petitioner relied in the case of “Tarak Dash Mukherjee and Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.” (Criminal Appeal No. 1400 of 2022), arising out of SLP (Criminal ) No. 503 of 2020 wherein para 12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “12. If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by the High Court” 6. On territorial jurisdiction, learned counsel for the petitioner relied in the case of “Y. Abraham Ajith and others V. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another” (2004) 8 SCC 100 wherein para 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 19. The settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by the High Court” 6. On territorial jurisdiction, learned counsel for the petitioner relied in the case of “Y. Abraham Ajith and others V. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another” (2004) 8 SCC 100 wherein para 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 19. When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to Respondent 2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 7. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ashwini Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the vehicle in question was dispossessed without following the due process of law and in that view of the matter criminality is made out and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of “Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi” (2012) 1 SCC 1 and in the case of “ICICI Bank Ltd. V. Prakash Kaur and others” (2007) 2 SCC 711 . 9. Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. 10. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the court has gone through the contents of complaint petition as well as order taking cognizance and finds that Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement was entered into between the L& T Finance Company and the O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No. 2 was to pay Rs. 89,98,000/- for which installment was fixed in 35 equal monthly installments of Rs. 2,47,000/- each. The complainant failed to pay the E.M.I., is an admitted fact. 89,98,000/- for which installment was fixed in 35 equal monthly installments of Rs. 2,47,000/- each. The complainant failed to pay the E.M.I., is an admitted fact. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that in Koderma Ghati, the said occurrence took place and the vehicle in question was taken away by the some miscreants on the point of pistol for that the case is already registered before the court of learned C.J.M., Koderma, based on that the present case has been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner is a Assistant Manager of the said finance company, Jamshedpur. 11. To make out case under section 420 of I.P.C. the intention of cheating from the very beginning is one of the ingredient in view of section 415 of the I.P.C. which is definition part of cheating. In the case in hand it has not been disclosed in the complaint petition how the petitioner has tried to cheat the complainant from the very beginning. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 failed to pay E.M.I. 12. Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code defines cheating and in order to constitute an offence of cheating the complainant must allege that there was fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. The allegations which have been made in the complaint petition does not go to suggest that there was deliberate or intentional act of dishonesty on the part of the petitioner from the initiation of the business transaction. If the intention of cheating is absent from inception of the transaction the same cannot constitute an offence of cheating against the petitioner. Even otherwise the allegations which have been levelled does not make out a case for an offence under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no doubt that an act may constitute a civil as well as a criminal wrong but as has been stated above, the complaint petition as well as the subsequent events including the initiation of the arbitration proceeding does not make out a case for which the petitioner can be prosecuted under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 13. 13. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 in the case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited (supra) the case was initiated under the Consumer Forum Act which was subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the bank has already complied the said direction of the National Commission which suggests that for civil case consumer forum has rightly passed order and in that view of the matter the said order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 in ICICI Bank Ltd (supra), direction was issued by the High Court to register F.I.R. against the bank and in that case it has been held that the bank is required to resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of the vehicle in cases where borrower has committed default and the said order was quashed. It further suggests that only civil case can be filed however in the case in hand the case with regard to criminality has already been filed as discussed in para 7 of the complaint petition itself. The case of the petitioner is fully covered with Tarak Dash Mukherjee (surpa). 15. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 04.10.2010 passed in connection with Case No. C/1-Case No. 2012 of 2010, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, is quashed. 16. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending, I.A., if any stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.