JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 65 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 544 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Seraikella. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 is the Managing Director, petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the Directors and the petitioner no. 4 is the General Manager of the accused no. 1-Company in the name and style of AML Steel and Power Limited. The allegation against the petitioners is that in capacity of Managing Director, Director and General Manager of the accused no. 1-Company, the petitioners used to pass orders, receive materials and execute work in terms of the contract entered into between the complainant and the accused no. 1-Company. It is also alleged that in July, 2007, the petitioner no. 4 along with co-accused and the petitioner no. 1 came to the office of the complainant and requested for supply of iron ore and coal. The same was supplied. Initially, the petitioners made payment against the material supplied but after expiry of some dates, the amount became due and being not paid by the accused persons and gradually, it became a huge amount. The complainant started to demand the outstanding dues and ultimately on 30.08.2010, a joint account was prepared in presence of the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 and the co-accused and it was agreed by the co-accused to pay a sum of Rs. 1,05,78,159/- at the earliest. In the meantime, during the pendency of the dues, further material was supplied to the accused no. 1-Company by the complainant and the total outstanding dues went on to 1,24,45,674/-. There is further allegation that on 25.03.2013, petitioner nos. 3, 1 and 4 along with co-accused persons called upon the complainant to their work and demanded extortion, criminally intimated him by pointing revolver and wrongfully confined him. 4. 1-Company by the complainant and the total outstanding dues went on to 1,24,45,674/-. There is further allegation that on 25.03.2013, petitioner nos. 3, 1 and 4 along with co-accused persons called upon the complainant to their work and demanded extortion, criminally intimated him by pointing revolver and wrongfully confined him. 4. The complaint filed by the complainant was referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate and consequent upon the same, the FIR was registered. 5. Police after investigation of the case, submitted charge sheet inter-alia against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 420/406/34 of Indian Penal Code only. 6. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella inadvertently, in the order dated 23.05.2017 mentioned that charge sheet has been submitted under Section 387, 420, 406, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and took cognizance of the said offences. Prior to the this petition, some of the petitioners filed two criminal miscellaneous petitions being Cr. M.P. Nos. 678 of 2014 and Cr. M.P. No. 2142 of 2013 in this Court with a prayer for quashing the FIR of the case and during the pendency of the said criminal miscellaneous petitions as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences vide the said order dated 23.05.2017, the matter was brought to the notice of the coordinate Bench and the coordinate Bench by its common order dated 24.07.2019, in the said two criminal miscellaneous petitions, set aside the order taking cognizance dated 23.05.2017 and remanded the matter back to the learned Chief judicial Magistrate for passing a fresh order on the basis of the materials including the FIR, charge sheet and materials collected during the investigation after due application of mind. 7. Subsequently, vide order dated 04.01.2020, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code which is under challenged in this application. 8. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since there is no allegation of the dishonest intention nor any deception alleged to have been played by any of the petitioners at the very inspection hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. In this respect, Mr. 8. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since there is no allegation of the dishonest intention nor any deception alleged to have been played by any of the petitioners at the very inspection hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. In this respect, Mr. Das relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 336 , paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under: 6. xxx xxx xxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. (Emphasis supplied) 9. It is further submitted by Mr. Das that there is no dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted material allegedly supplied by the complainant to the petitioners as the material supplied by the complainant to the petitioners were admittedly to be used by the petitioners only. In this respect, Mr. Das relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2019) 9 SCC 148 , paragraph nos. 11 to 13 of which reads as under: “11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment. 12. In this context, we may note that there is nothing either in the complaint or in any material before us, pointing to the fact that any property was entrusted to the appellant at all which he dishonestly converted for his own use so as to satisfy the ingredients of Section 405 punishable under Section 406 IPC. Hence the learned Magistrate committed a serious error in issuing process against the appellant for the said offence. Unfortunately, the High Court also failed to correct this manifest error. 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. [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Mr. Das also relied upon the judgment of two coordinate Benches in Cr. M.P. No. 1533 of 2012 dated 08.10.2012 and Cr. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Mr. Das also relied upon the judgment of two coordinate Benches in Cr. M.P. No. 1533 of 2012 dated 08.10.2012 and Cr. M.P. No. 2030 of 2013 dated 11.04.2023 to buttress his submission that offences punishable either under Section 420 or under Section 406/34 is not made out against any of the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Das that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 65 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 544 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella be quashed. 11. Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, learned Special Public Prosecutor and Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 65 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 544 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 31.03.2011 passed by a coordinate Bench in Cr. M.P. No. 1345 of 2010, it is submitted by Mr. Singh that in a similar allegation against the petitioners, a coordinate Bench has not interfered with the order taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted by Mr. Singh that there was as such no written contract between the parties and each order placed by the accused persons with the complainant was a standalone order having no relationship with the earlier order and the individual offences committed by the petitioners in respect of each of the purchase orders placed by them with the complainant in respect of which supply has been made by the complainant to the petitioners and accused no. 1-company. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 12. 1-company. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and Another (supra) that as the material supplied by the complainant to the petitioners and the accused no. 1-Company of the complaint basing upon which the FIR of the case has been registered was intended to be used by the petitioners and the co-accused persons themselves. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioners have dishonestly misappropriated the entrusted property. In the absence of the essential ingredient of dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property certainly by the petitioner, the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is certainly not made out against the petitioners. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and Another (supra), the deception played at the very inception is a sine-qua-non for the cheating and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. 14. Now in this case, admittedly, the petitioners and the co-accused-persons have made part payment of the materials received by them to the complainant. There is absolutely no allegation anywhere in the complaint which upon being referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the FIR of the case was registered; of any dishonest intention of the petitioners or the co-accused persons at any point of time during any of the transactions. The admitted fact that there were series of business transaction between the parties to the case; rules out the essential ingredient of deception from the very beginning, which is a sine-qua-non to constitute the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Under such facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is also not made out and this is a case basically of breach of contract between the parties. 16. 15. Under such facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is also not made out and this is a case basically of breach of contract between the parties. 16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of court and this is a fit case where in the interest of justice the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 65 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 544 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella be quashed. 17. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 65 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 544 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 18. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.