JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chamaria, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 15.06.2017 passed in connection with C.P. Case No.1102 of 2017, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant is the proprietor of a company M/s. Prem Enterprises. The accused No. 1 and 3 induced the complainant to invest amount to be a 'Consignee Sales Agent' (CSA) for entire Jharkhand State of his company for their products like Namkeen, Potato Chips and other food products and under the name and style as 'Kalaji' and with respect to the same an agreement called Consignee Seller Agreement was entered into between the parties which was duly notarized on 17.03.2006. It was further alleged that the accused persons took Rs. 24,00,000/ from the complainant during April, 2016 to August, 2016. The accused persons supplied the goods/materials for Rs. 22,44,354.33 only against the said payments in part wise on different dates. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,55,745.67 is illegally held by the accused persons. As per the said agreement, the defective and unusable goods returned to the accused parsons and the complainant claimed Rs. 12,24,101/- towards damage claim. As per the agreement, the remuneration and benefits was to be paid by the accused persons to the complainant under different heads. The accused persons are liable to pay Rs. 423,005.45. The claim as above in total Rs. 1,55,745.67+12,24,101+ 4,23,005.45 = Rs. 18,02,852.12 payable by the accused persons to the complainant. It was also stated that the accused persons did not pay the amount despite repeated letters dated 26.09.2016 and 06.10.2016 nor replied to the legal notice dated 18.02.2017. It was further alleged that the accused person in violation of the subject agreement has appointed another CSA and has closed the business with the complainant. The acts of the accused persons come within the purview of cheating and criminal breach of trust and fraud. The accused persons with dishonest intention and thereby induced cheated the complainant by executing agreement under wrong intention and violated the terms and conditions thereof. 4. Mr. The acts of the accused persons come within the purview of cheating and criminal breach of trust and fraud. The accused persons with dishonest intention and thereby induced cheated the complainant by executing agreement under wrong intention and violated the terms and conditions thereof. 4. Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is arising out of an agreement and the petitioners and opposite party no.2 by way of the said agreement, have entered into business agreement. He draws attention of the Court to paragraph 6 of the complaint petition and submits that it has been alleged in that paragraph that the petitioners have supplied the goods for Rs.22,44,254.33/- paise, however remaining amount of Rs.1,55,745.67/- paise was illegally held by the accused persons. He further submits that there was no intention of cheating from very beginning and in view of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, intention from very beginning is one of the ingredients for making out a case. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Kaur and others v. Jagnar Singh and another; [ (2009) 14 SCC 696 ]. 5. Paragraphs 8 and 10 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: “8. Sections 405 and 415 of the Penal Code defining “criminal breach of trust” and “cheating” respectively read as under: “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’. * * * 415. * * * 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’.” An offence of cheating would be constituted when the accused has fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. A pure and simple breach of contract does not constitute an offence of cheating. 10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code.” 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chamaria, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that criminality is made out and without termination of the agreement, supply of food articles and other, which comes to near about Rs.18 Lakhs has not been paid. He further submits that from beginning intention was there and that is why the complaint case was filed and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance and, therefore, this Court may not entertain this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the complaint petition and finds that in paragraph 6 of the complaint petition, it is admitted that the amount to the tune of Rs.22,44,254.33/- paise was already paid. This has happened in terms of the agreement, contained in Annexure-2. This has happened in terms of the agreement, contained in Annexure-2. Thus from very beginning, from the said paragraph itself, intention of cheating on behalf of the petitioners is not there. Further, the arbitration clause is also there in the said agreement. 8. 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. It is no doubt true 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. 9. There is no doubt that in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to be circumspect in considering such application as this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry or sift through the evidences if the same are not unimpeachable in nature. However, if on considering the allegations and the documents which are not denied by the opposite party no. 2 this Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and the miscarriage of justice. 10. Further, if the claim is arising out of an agreement, for every breach of contract, criminal case cannot be made unless ingredient of criminal case is disclosed in the complaint or FIR. 11. 10. Further, if the claim is arising out of an agreement, for every breach of contract, criminal case cannot be made unless ingredient of criminal case is disclosed in the complaint or FIR. 11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, this Court is inclined to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 15.06.2017 passed in connection with C.P. Case No.1102 of 2017, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad is quashed. 12. It is made clear that if any civil matter is pending or instituted by opposite party no.2, that shall be decided on its own merit without prejudiced to this order. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.