JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer with regard to prayer no.2 relating to quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No.121 of 2022 dated 22.5.2022, registered under sections 420, 409/120B IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. Mr. Utkarsh Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR the allegations are made that the informant has supplied coal to various companies/ persons and against that the money was due to the informant and inspite of that those persons are not paying the money to the informant and he submits that so far the role of the petitioner is concerned only the allegations is made that the petitioner has introduced the informant with M/s Bajrang Coke, Kanpur (Dehat). He submits that in the FIR itself it is disclosed that after supply of the coal certain amount has been paid however for recovery of certain amount the case has been lodged and if such a situation is there, the only remedy to the informant is to file a civil suit for recovery of the amount and at this stage he submits that the entire criminal proceeding is misuse of process of law. To buttress his argument he relied in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 wherein at paragraph nos.6 and 7 it has been held as under: 6. Now the question to be examined by us is as to whether on the facts disclosed in the petition of complaint any criminal offence whatsoever is made out much less offences under Sections 420/120-B IPC. The only allegation in the complaint petition against the accused persons is that they assured the complainant that when they receive the insurance claim amounting to Rs 4,20,000, they would pay a sum of Rs 2,60,000 to the complainant out of that but the same has never been paid. Apart from that there is no other allegation in the petition of complaint. Apart from that there is no other allegation in the petition of complaint. It was pointed out on behalf of the complainant that the accused fraudulently persuaded the complainant to agree so that the accused persons may take steps for moving the Consumer Forum in relation to the claim of Rs 4,20,000. 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. 7. In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC which it has erroneously refused. 4. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that every breach of contract cannot be a subject matter of FIR. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has recently been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the filing of the criminal case for recovery of the amount in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248, where in para-36 it has been held as follows:- “36. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. [See : Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171 & Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another : 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301].” 5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the police has unnecessarily registered the FIR for civil wrong if any and the petitioner is being harassed. He submits that if the case is covered in light of the guidelines made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.102 of the judgment rendered in the case of State of Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal and others” reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and submits that at the initial stage the Court can quash the FIR. 6. Mr.Deepankar, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the counter affidavit has been filed and the investigation is still going on and this is only the FIR and in view of that this Court may not interfere at this stage. 7. Mr.Rishav Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 submits that the amount has not been paid and the intention was also there not to pay and in view of that the case is made out against the petitioner and as such the entire criminal proceeding may not be quashed. He further submits that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State, in paragraph no.6, it has been disclosed that the petitioner was also the partner of M/s Jai Bajrang E&T Udyog and in view of that the case is made out against the petitioner. 8. He further submits that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State, in paragraph no.6, it has been disclosed that the petitioner was also the partner of M/s Jai Bajrang E&T Udyog and in view of that the case is made out against the petitioner. 8. In view of above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and the contents of the FIR and finds that in the FIR only allegation against the petitioner is made that the petitioner has introduced the informant with M/s Bajrang Coke, Kanpur (Dehat). In the FIR itself it is admitted that certain amount has already been paid however for recovery of the amount, the case has been registered which clearly suggest that intention to cheat from the very beginning is not there as the amount has been paid. However, the dispute arose later on with regard to recovery of certain amount and for that the criminal case has been lodged. 9. In the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.(supra) wherein at paragraph no.43 it has been observed as under: “43. It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. The two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each other. The two provisions of the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other.” 10. What has been stated hereinabove it is crystal clear that for recovery of the amount the FIR has been registered and there is no doubt that at initial stage the investigation cannot be halted by the High Court by interfering and quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. However, if the case is covered in light of the guidelines made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal and others” particularly guidelines nos.1 and 5 the FIR also can be quashed. 11. However, if the case is covered in light of the guidelines made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal and others” particularly guidelines nos.1 and 5 the FIR also can be quashed. 11. It is well settled that every breach of contract may not give rise of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract will amount to cheating that there was any deception being played at the very inception. A reference may be made to the case of Vesa Holdings Pvt. Limited & Anr. Versus State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293 , where in para-12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “12. From the decisions cited by the appellant, the settled proposition of law is 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 other words for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 can be said to have been made out.” 12. In view of above and considering that for recovery of the amount the FIR has been registered, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No.121 of 2022 dated 22.5.2022, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad are hereby quashed. 13. It is made clear that if any civil proceeding is there, that will proceed in accordance with law without prejudice to this order as this order is passed only considering the criminality in the matter. 14. This petition is allowed and disposed of. 15. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.