JUDGMENT : YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT, J. 6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673 , this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626 , observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising 8 the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Essentially, the present dispute between the parties relates to a breach of contract. A mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case, as held by this Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2023) 5 SCC 360 . 7. Essentially, the present dispute between the parties relates to a breach of contract. A mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case, as held by this Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2023) 5 SCC 360 . Similarly, dealing with the distinction between the offence of cheating and a mere breach of contractual obligations, this Court, in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 , has held that every breach of contract would not give rise to the offence of cheating, and it is required to be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. 6.1 The basic requirements/ingredients to bring home the accusations under the alleged offences are hereunder:-......... Offence punishable under Section 420, IPC. To constitute the said offence there must be deception i.e., the accused must have deceived someone; that by such deception the accused must induce a person (i) to deliver any property; or (ii) to make, alter, destroy a whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property; or (iii) that the accused must have done so dishonestly. The offence punishable under Section 120B, IPC, to constitute criminal conspiracy, there must be agreement between two or more persons. The agreement should be to do or cause to be done some illegal act, or some act which is not illegal, by illegal means, provided that where the agreement is other than one to commit an offence, the prosecution must further prove; or (iv) that some act besides the agreement was done by or more of the parties in pursuance of it. 23. Section 405 of IPC defines Criminal Breach of Trust which reads 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”. The essential ingredients of the offense of criminal breach of trust are:-(1) The accused must be entrusted with the property or with dominion over it, (2) The person so entrusted must use that property, or; (3) The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so in violation, (a) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or; (b) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust. 24. “Entrustment” of property under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this. The words used are, ‘in any manner entrusted with property’. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of ‘trust’. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code. 25. The definition in the section does not restrict the property to movables or immoveable alone. This Court in R K Dalmia vs Delhi Administration, (1963) 1 SCR 253 held that the word ‘property’ is used in the Code in a much wider sense than the 14 expression ‘moveable property’. There is no good reason to restrict the meaning of the word ‘property’ to moveable property only when it is used without any qualification in Section 405. 26. In Sudhir Shantilal Mehta Vs. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1 it was observed that the act of criminal breach of trust would, Interalia mean using or disposing of the property by a person who is entrusted with or has otherwise dominion thereover. Such an act must not only be done dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust. 27. Section 415 of IPC define cheating which reads as under: -415. Cheating. Such an act must not only be done dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust. 27. Section 415 of IPC define 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 offense of cheating are: 1. 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. 28. 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. 29. Section 420 IPC defines cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property which reads as under: - “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. —Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 30. Section 420 IPC is a serious form of cheating that includes inducement (to lead or move someone to happen) in terms of delivery of property as well as valuable securities. This section is also applicable to matters where the destruction of the property is caused by the way of cheating or inducement. Section 420 IPC is a serious form of cheating that includes inducement (to lead or move someone to happen) in terms of delivery of property as well as valuable securities. This section is also applicable to matters where the destruction of the property is caused by the way of cheating or inducement. Punishment for cheating is provided under this section which may extend to 7 years and also makes the person liable to fine. 31. To establish the offence of Cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need to be proved:- 1. The representation made by the person was false 2. The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false. 3. The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made. 4. The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed. 32. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr., (2019) 16 SCC 739 the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:-i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to; a) deliver property to any person; or b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC. “It is settled law, by a catena of decisions, that for establishing the 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. From his making failure to keep promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the beginning that is at the time when the promise was made cannot be presumed. It is seen from the records that the exemption certificate contained necessary conditions which were required to be complied with after importation of the machine. Since the GCS could not comply with it, therefore, it rightly paid the necessary duties without taking advantage of the exemption certificate. It is seen from the records that the exemption certificate contained necessary conditions which were required to be complied with after importation of the machine. Since the GCS could not comply with it, therefore, it rightly paid the necessary duties without taking advantage of the exemption certificate. The conduct of the GCS clearly indicates that there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention of either the GCS or the appellants in their capacities as office-bearers right at the time of making application for exemption. As there was absence of dishonest and fraudulent intention, the question of committing offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise.” 2. The parties hereto entered into a contract of carriage. First Respondent approached the appellants which are companies registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act for delivery of six consignments valued at US $ 98,715.29 to the original consignee, M/s. Universal Apparels (EPZ), Mombassa, Kenya. By reason of a fax message, Appellants asked their counterparts in Mombassa, Kenya (Walford Meadows) to confirm delivery of consignment asking it to see that the cargo is delivered only against presentation of original Bills of Lading. The goods in question were said to have been delivered by the agent of the petitioner to the original consignee but the same allegedly was rejected on the ground of being inferior in quality. Goods are said to have been delivered to M/s. Fashionette Industries Ltd. Complainant-Respondent issued a notice to the accused persons as also the aforementioned Walford Meadows and M/s. Universal Apparels stating : “That with utter disregard to the procedures and practice prevalent internationally, and being fully conscious of the consequences of delivering the consignments without production of the Bills of Lading, you M/s. Walford Meadows Ltd., as agents of the Carrier at Mombassa Ltd. effected delivery of the consignments covered under the aforesaid original bills of lading to the consignees, without their producing the Bills of Lading. That my clients are shocked at your act of negligence, which is contrary, violative and in breach of your duties under the Contract and Law.” 3. Negligence was, thus, attributed to the agencies in delivering the cargo without the original Bill of Lading. It was also alleged that the carriers and their agent have committed a breech of carriage and acted in violation of their contract and obligation. A claim for a sum of US$ 84,353.31 was made. Negligence was, thus, attributed to the agencies in delivering the cargo without the original Bill of Lading. It was also alleged that the carriers and their agent have committed a breech of carriage and acted in violation of their contract and obligation. A claim for a sum of US$ 84,353.31 was made. In the said notice, it was stated : “That you, M/s. Walford Meadows, sent a fax dated 19.9.1996 to M/s Universal Apparels, copy of which was faxed to my clients by you M/s All Cargo Movers (India) Pvt. Ltd. By the said fax, you M/s Walford Meadows Ltd. have clearly pointed out the procedures to be followed in respect of Through Bills of Lading or House Bills of Lading and have admitted that no cargo should be released to the importer without the presentation of the original Bills of Lading. That you, M/s. Walford have gone one step further and stated that you had delivered the consignments to Universal Apparels as a favour, since Universal Apparels were your regular customers etc. etc. and lodged a claim for the value of the said consignments being the amount they have been debited with you, M/s. All Cargo.” 12. Agent of the Kenyan counterpart of the petitioner, namely M/s. Walford Meadows Ltd. against whom allegations have been made that it had delivered the consignments to the assignee without original bills of lading had not been made an accused. 13. A bare perusal of the complaint petition would show that it did not contain any averment in regard to the ingredients of the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no allegation that it was the petitioner who had delivered the goods. 16. We are of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, do not disclose an offence. For the said purpose, This Court may not only take into consideration the admitted facts but it is also permissible to look into the pleadings of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in the suit. No allegation whatsoever was made against the appellants herein in the notice. What was contended was negligence and/or breach of contract on the part of the carriers and their agent. Breach of contract simplicitor does not constitute an offence. No allegation whatsoever was made against the appellants herein in the notice. What was contended was negligence and/or breach of contract on the part of the carriers and their agent. Breach of contract simplicitor does not constitute an offence. For the said purpose, allegations in the complaint petition must disclose the necessary ingredients therefor. Where a civil suit is pending and the complaint petition has been filed one year after filing of the civil suit, we may for the purpose of finding out as to whether the said allegations are prima facie cannot notice the correspondences exchanged by the parties and other admitted documents. It is one thing to say that the Court at this juncture would not consider the defence of the accused but it is another thing to say that for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, it is impermissible also to look to the admitted documents. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. Superior Courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. 21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed and the order taking cognizance against the appellant is set aside.