JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By filing this revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners being the accused persons have challenged the propriety, legality and correctness of the impugned Order dated 24th August, 2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court at Calcutta in C.S. No. 4780 of 2021 under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC (Chhatishgarh Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. & Ors.) thereby the learned Court below issued summons against the accused persons and fixed a date on 01.10.2021 for service return. 2. The brief facts, leading to filing of this instant revisional application, are as under: 2a. Sometimes in the last week of October 2017, the petitioner/accused nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 herein went to the office of the opposite party/complainant at No. 10, Biplabi Rasbehary Basu Road, Police Station-Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, represented their company Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. (petitioner no. 1 herein) dealt in the retail business of MS Gates and required purchasing of the MS Gates from the Opposite Party/Complainant Company. They also represented that their company had a very good reputation and goodwill in the local markets of Mumbai and they would give good profit to the Opposite Party/Complainant Company if it started a dealership business with them. They also assured if the goods were sold to them, they would make payment as per the terms and conditions of the complainant company. Accordingly, they placed a purchased order dated 01.07.2017 for a total amount of Rs. 1,45,90,464/-. Accordingly, the complainant company sold and supplied various MS gates against proper bills/invoices. 2b. It is further alleged that the accused company allegedly received the goods worth Rs. 1,12,32,184/-but allegedly made part payment, leaving behind a balance due sum of Rs. 22,32,041/-only. The complainant company sent a demand notice dated 30.07.2021 but the accused persons allegedly made no payment and thus the accused persons had allegedly been liable to be prosecuted and punished under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC. 2c. On the contrary, the accused persons denied the allegations made by the complainant company and further denied the petitioner company dealt in the retail business of MS Gates, having a very good reputation and goodwill in the local markets of Mumbai. 2c. On the contrary, the accused persons denied the allegations made by the complainant company and further denied the petitioner company dealt in the retail business of MS Gates, having a very good reputation and goodwill in the local markets of Mumbai. Actually, the petitioner company was initially incorporated as a Private Ltd. Company in 1924 which was converted to Public Ltd. Company in 1948, after taking over by Indian Management, having Head Office located at Mumbai and also having several Zonal Head Quarter at different places including New Delhi and Kolkata. The petitioner company is fully engaged in construction both industrial and infrastructure having annual turnover is about Rs. 1700 Crore and its regular present staff strength is over 2700 technical and commercial personnel excluding labour and muster staff employed at different project sites. 2d. The petitioner company had placed a purchased order on 04.10.2017 and 01.11.2017 respectively from its head office at New Delhi for purchase of steel transformer gates, requiring them for execution of some construction jobs at their work sites at Jagdalpur, CG and according to the purchase order, they have supplied the goods. The transaction by and between the parties herein was a commercial transaction only. Any breach of terms and conditions would create civil liability. The relief available in a forum like MSME, NCLT, Commercial Courts etc. for specific performance along with the damages suffered due to alleged breach of contract. But despite of knowing the said facts, the opposite party, with ill motive, tried to convert civil disputes into criminal complaints though the present petitioners or their company is not at all involved in the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC. 2e. In spite of the aforesaid facts, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to appreciate any prima facie case or complicity of the present petitioners in the alleged offence as complained of and issued notice upon the petitioners overlooking and ignoring that the complainant has tried to convert criminal law in place of civil wrong is an abuse of process of law which requires to be quashed otherwise the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. Under the above facts and circumstances, the instant criminal revisional application has come up before this Court for disposal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 3. Under the above facts and circumstances, the instant criminal revisional application has come up before this Court for disposal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that whatsoever transactions had been made between the petitioner company and the opposite party are commercial transactions and it is admitted facts that out of such transaction amount, some part payment has been made by the company. If any dues are lying with the petitioner company, that may be recovered by filing a civil suit and not by criminal complaint. The opposite party, with ill motive, attempted to convert alleged breach of contractual obligations and/or civil disputes into criminal complaints, despite several warnings issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and other High Courts against criminalising civil disputes, explaining the difference between breach of contractual obligations, criminal breach of trust and cheating. The petitioners or their company never committed any offence as alleged by the complainant. As such, the petitioners pray for quashing of the instant proceeding being C.S. No. 4780 of 2021 and order of issuing summons passed therein by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Calcutta. Learned advocate has referred the following judgments to bolster his submissions: i. Hridaya Rangan Pd. Verma and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., Case No.: Appeal (Crl.) 313-314 of 2000 ii. Abhishek Saxena Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023 iii. Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., 2024 Latest Caselaw 67 SC iv. Sachin Garg Vs. State of UP & Anr., Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4415 of 2023 v. Vishal Noble Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2389 of 2023 SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY: 4. Per contra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite party submitted that the accused persons or their company have never denied about the purchased order receiving the goods as supplied by the opposite party. It is also not denied by the petitioners that there are no dues. Actually, after delivery of goods, the accused persons just in order to create confidence upon the complainant company made part payment to the complainant company leaving behind a balance due of Rs. 22,32,041/-. It is also not denied by the petitioners that there are no dues. Actually, after delivery of goods, the accused persons just in order to create confidence upon the complainant company made part payment to the complainant company leaving behind a balance due of Rs. 22,32,041/-. The said amount is still due and payable by the accused persons to the complainant company. 4a. It is further submitted that the accused persons, in collusion and conspiracy among themselves, have misappropriated the said goods for their personal wrongful gain and had been sold it in retail market of Mumbai along with monetary benefit. Thus, the accused persons induced the company to part with the goods and trusted upon the accused no. 1 company by the complainant company amounting to Rs. 22,32,041/-thereby causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant company. As such, they had wrongful intention to cheat and had deceived the complainant company. As such, they committed offence punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of IPC. After the solemn affirmation by the complainant company before the learned Court below and after being satisfied, the learned Court below issued mere summons to them to appear before the Court to make their stand clear. But the petitioners have challenged the said impugned order of issuing summons though that order is legal, correct and no perversity. Accordingly, the instant revisional application is liable to be dismissed in limine because issuance of summons against the accused persons is not a final order. DISCUSSIONS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF THIS COURT: 5. Having heard the rival arguments and submissions of both the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds in the instant revisional application Petitioners have challenged an order dated 24th August, 2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court at Calcutta and praying for setting aside the same with further prayer for quashing of the entire proceeding being C.S. No. 4780 of 2021 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Calcutta. From perusal of the order dated 24.08.2021 it reveals the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order, inter alia, as under: “Today is fixed for S/A. Complainant is present with his Ld. Advocate and another witness along with all original document. Complainant is examined on S/A u/s. 200 CrPC. I have considered his evidence as well as documents placed in support of his version. The other witness is also examined. Advocate and another witness along with all original document. Complainant is examined on S/A u/s. 200 CrPC. I have considered his evidence as well as documents placed in support of his version. The other witness is also examined. In the light of Hon’ble Apex Court’s guideline, it appears that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons for committing offences u/s. 406/420/120B IPC. Accordingly, issue summons against the accused persons. Fix 01/10/2021 for SR. Complainant is to file requisites at once.” 6. Upon perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Calcutta after considering the prima facie evidence as well as documents placed in support of the complainant’s allegations, issued summons against the accused persons for committing of an offence punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of IPC. Before passing such issuance of summons, the learned Court below examined the complainant under Section 200 Cr.PC as well as other witnesses and after being satisfying that there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the case against the accused persons, issued summons to them. 7. Now question arises whether issuing of summons upon the accused persons is perverse, incorrect or illegal or proceeding is an abuse of process of law? 8. Upon perusal of Judgements referred by the petitioners, it reveals the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in a case Sachin Garg vs. State of U.P. & Anr. in Paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 as follows:- “18. While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, as has been held in the case of Jagdish Ram (supra). The same proposition of law has been laid down in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. –vs-Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [ (1998) 5 SCC 749 ]. The learned Magistrate’s order issuing summons records the background of the case in rather longish detail but reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic manner. At the stage of issue of summons, detailed reasoning as to why a Magistrate is issuing summons, however, is not necessary. But in this case, we are satisfied that the allegations made by the complainant do not give rise to the offences for which the appellant has been summoned for trial. At the stage of issue of summons, detailed reasoning as to why a Magistrate is issuing summons, however, is not necessary. But in this case, we are satisfied that the allegations made by the complainant do not give rise to the offences for which the appellant has been summoned for trial. A commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint. The learned Magistrate here failed to apply his mind in issuing summons and the High Court also failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the 1973 Code to prevent abuse of the power of the Criminal Court. 19. It is true that the appellant could seek discharge in course of the proceeding itself before the concerned Court, but here we find that no case at all has been made out that would justify invoking the machinery of the Criminal Courts. The dispute, per se, is commercial in nature having no element of criminality.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held in a case Vishal Noble Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Paragraph No. 21 as follows:- “21. We find that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud.” 10. In the present case, it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the petitioners to cheat, which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, there is nothing in the complaint to show that the petitioners had dishonest and fraudulent intention at the time, when the opposite party had supplied the MS gates. It is further admitted facts that there was a business terms between the parties. The petitioners had paid part payment out of the outstanding dues amount promptly. Dispute arises between the parties when the petitioner failed to pay the outstanding dues amount of Rs. It is further admitted facts that there was a business terms between the parties. The petitioners had paid part payment out of the outstanding dues amount promptly. Dispute arises between the parties when the petitioner failed to pay the outstanding dues amount of Rs. 22, 32,041/-and the said non-payment was owing to supply of MS Gates by the opposite party. Those disputes are apparently civil in nature and that could be decided in Civil Court. No other prima facie ingredients made out by the opposite party in a Court complaint case regarding offences as alleged. 11. This Court also relies on several Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. These are taken up herein below : The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai and Anr., 1972 Cri.L.J.1243 has held as follows :- "To hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. Such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfill the promise." Similarly in the case in hand, there was nothing to show that the petitioners had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time when agreement took place to supply MS gates. It is not disputed by the petitioners that there was no outstanding dues of Rs. 22, 32,041/-. Those transactions, by no stretch of imagination, can be called dishonest inducements. It was purely business transactions of a civil nature. Simply because of the amounts have not been paid or are outstanding will not make it a case of wilful or dishonest inducement or deception. Similary, in Haridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 168 like in the present case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:- “There was no allegation in the complaint indicating, expressly or impliedly, any intentional deception on the part of the appellants right from the beginning of the transaction. The Hon’ble Apex Court drew distinction between cheating from mere breach of contract. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, definition of cheating contemplates two separate classes of acts namely deception by fraudulent or dishonest inducement and deception by intention. Deception by fraudulent or dishonest inducement must be shown to exist right from the beginning of the transaction”. The Hon’ble Apex Court drew distinction between cheating from mere breach of contract. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, definition of cheating contemplates two separate classes of acts namely deception by fraudulent or dishonest inducement and deception by intention. Deception by fraudulent or dishonest inducement must be shown to exist right from the beginning of the transaction”. It is not the case of the opposite party in the present case that he was deceived by fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the beginning of the transaction rather admits petitioners had made part payment. 12. Upon perusal of copy of complaint it shows that there was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement or deception by intentional practiced by the petitioners right from the beginning of the transaction. If subsequent payment has not been made, that will not tantamount to deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement nor would it amount to deception by intentional means right from the beginning of the transaction. Therefore, the case under Sections 406/420/120B of IPC in the facts of this case has not been made out. The petitioners were not deceived nor induced to enter into the business transaction. That is not his case in the complaint nor there was any inducement dishonestly or fraudulently made to deliver the MS gates. They entered into a business transaction. The breach of contract or business transaction cannot be called cheating in the facts of this case. Similar view was also expressed in the case of Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and Ors., (1973) 2 SCC 823 , the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with a case of quashing of FIR under Section 420 IPC where the appellant had entered into a business transaction and in good faith paid large amount to respondents for starting the business. Respondents neither started the business in their own names and refused to render accounts nor were money refunded by that appellant. The question before the Hon’ble Apex Court arose whether in such circumstances respondents could be held criminally liable under Section 420 IPC. While negating the plea of the appellant, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even assuming prima facie all the allegations in the complaint to be true they merely amount to a breach of contract and could not give rise to criminal prosecution. 13. While negating the plea of the appellant, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even assuming prima facie all the allegations in the complaint to be true they merely amount to a breach of contract and could not give rise to criminal prosecution. 13. In the light of above observations together with averments contained in the Court complaint, this Court finds ingredient of the offences alleged by the opposite party are missing. Merely because payment has not been made or accounts have not been settled, it does not constitute offences punishable under 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The disputes between the parties are purely civil in nature and criminal proceeding in such a civil nature case should not be allowed to be continued any further against the present petitioners otherwise it would be an abuse of process of law. 14. Accordingly, Order dated 24th August, 2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court at Calcutta in C.S. No. 4780 of 2021 under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC (Chhatishgarh Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. & Ors.) thereby issuing summons against the accused persons and fixed a date on 01.10.2021 for service return is set aside and the proceeding against the petitioners thereof is also quashed. 15. Consequentially, CRR 49 of 2022 is, thus, allowed. Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of. 16. Case Diary, if any, is to be returned to the learned Advocate for the State. 17. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the learned Court below for information and taking necessary action. 18. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 19. Parties shall act on the server copies of this order uploaded on the website of this Court. 20. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all formalities.