JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015 and for opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P. No.1126 of 2013 and Mr. Indrajit Sinha through Video Conferencing along with Mr. Rishav Kumar, who is present in the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.1126 of 2013 and for opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015 and Mr. Fahad Allam and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State in Cr.M.P. Nos. 1072 of 2015 and 1126 of 2013 respectively. 2. In Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.04.2013 in connection with Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No.585/2012, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that opposite party no.2-Rishi Pandey is the Director of M/s Sigma E Solution Private Limited, who used to sell and repair of laptop, desktop, software and computer and he is having good reputation and seeing the his good reputation, the petitioner-Sandeep Jaiswal @ Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal made a cheating with him to give benefit of his own company, namely, Star Seven Company as the petitioner has appointed on the job on 07.11.2011 as a service engineer of the company of the informant and the petitioner did not disclose the fact that he is the owner of Star Seven Computer and after taking the job/employment, he started to make business correspondence of Dhanbad area and the business correspondence of the informant company was used by the petitioner company for his company and document of the customers was used to hide by the petitioner and in place of same, he used to correspondence his own company, namely Star Seven Computers and also supplied goods through his own company due to it the informant suffered a loss in Lac of Rupees and on 05.06.2012, when the informant went to the office cum residence of the petitioner and demanded his laptop, computers, then the petitioner abused the informant and threatened not to come in his office. 4. In Cr.M.P. No.1126 of 2013, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.02.2013 in connection with C.P. Case No.1307 of 2012, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 4. In Cr.M.P. No.1126 of 2013, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.02.2013 in connection with C.P. Case No.1307 of 2012, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 5. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant- Sandeep Jaiswal @ Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal was serving his company, namely, Star Seven Computers in I.S.M., Campus since last three years. It was further alleged that in the last week of August, 2011, System and Hardware Engineer Mr. Subhas left his job from the I.S.M. Campus and on the basis of request of accused persons, till the re-appointment of a new System Engineer, the complainant continued his service in I.S.M. Campus. It was also alleged that because of un-uniform payment, such as Rs.7,800/- and Rs.5,880/- was made payment by the accused persons to the complainant and because of that fact on 31.03.2012, the complainant stopped his work in I.S.M. Campus. It was alleged that on 26.05.2012, accused no.2 sent a message to the complainant that the complainant was the employee of the company, but he was terminated due to his misconduct with the company. It was further alleged that the complainant replied of the same and denied all the frivolous and fictitious allegation levelled against him and, thereafter, accused persons from different phone numbers started threatening the complainant on different ways. It was also alleged that the complainant had informed the matter to the police station concerned on 09.06.2012. 6. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matters of Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015 as well as Cr.M.P. No.1126 of 2013 are counter blast of both the cases. He submits that both the cases have been registered on the same date. He further submits that the petitioner-Sandeep Jaiswal @ Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal is doing his business of computer in the name of Star Seven Computers from the year 2007 at Dhanbad and he was working in I.S.M. prior to request made by opposite party no.2. He further submits that on the request of opposite party no.2, he has discharged certain work of opposite party no2. He submits that the entire allegations are false and there is no document to suggest that anything has been cheated by the petitioner and only bald allegation is made. He further submits that on the request of opposite party no.2, he has discharged certain work of opposite party no2. He submits that the entire allegations are false and there is no document to suggest that anything has been cheated by the petitioner and only bald allegation is made. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929. He refers paragraphs 16, 17, 24 and 28 of the said judgment, which read as under : “16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted. 24. The term “fraud” is not defined in the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted. 24. The term “fraud” is not defined in the Code. The dictionary definition of “fraud” is “deliberate deception, treachery or cheating intended to gain advantage”. Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines “fraud” with reference to a party to a contract. 28 [Ed.: Para 28 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./149/2009 dated 6-10-2009.]. To “defraud” or do something fraudulently is not by itself made an offence under the Penal Code, but various acts when done fraudulently (or fraudulently and dishonestly) are made offences. These include: (i) Fraudulent removal or concealment of property (Sections 206, 421 and 424). (ii) Fraudulent claim to property to prevent seizure (Section 207). (iii) Fraudulent suffering or obtaining a decree (Sections 208 and 210). (iv) Fraudulent possession/delivery of counterfeit coin (Sections 239, 240, 242 and 243). (v) Fraudulent alteration/diminishing weight of coin (Sections 246 to 253). (vi) Fraudulent acts relating to stamps (Sections 255 to 261). (vii) Fraudulent use of false instrument/ weight/ measure (Sections 264 to 266). (viii) Cheating (Sections 415 to 420). (ix) Fraudulent prevention of debt being available to creditors (Section 422). (x) Fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration (Section 423). (xi) Forgery making or executing a false document (Sections 463 to 471 and 474). (xii) Fraudulent cancellation/destruction of valuable security, etc. (Section 477). (xiii) Fraudulently going through marriage ceremony (Section 496). It follows therefore that by merely alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under the Code or other law.” 7. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the order taking cognizance dated 15.04.2013 and submits that there is non-application of judicial mind. 8. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015 opposed the prayer on the ground that the allegations are there of taking away important information of the company and on that basis, he has earned a lot. He submits that in view of that, the case is made out against the petitioner. 9. Mr. 8. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015 opposed the prayer on the ground that the allegations are there of taking away important information of the company and on that basis, he has earned a lot. He submits that in view of that, the case is made out against the petitioner. 9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1126 of 2013 submits that the complaint case has been filed as counter blast of the case filed by the petitioner. He submits that the entire prosecution set up by the complainant is false and even if any case is made out i.e. commercial in nature, which has been coloured into a criminal offence by the complainant. He further submits that only allegation is that certain amount was not paid to the petitioner for work he has done and based on that, the present case has been filed. He submits that maliciously the case has been filed. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M N G Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan and another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1061. He refers paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment, which read as under : “13. The ingredients of the offence of cheating are spelt out in Section 415 of the IPC. Section 415 is extracted below: “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”. Explanation- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.” 14. The ingredients of the offence under Section 415 emerge from a textual reading. Firstly, to constitute cheating, a person must deceive another. Explanation- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.” 14. The ingredients of the offence under Section 415 emerge from a textual reading. Firstly, to constitute cheating, a person must deceive another. Secondly, by doing so the former must induce the person so deceived to (i) deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (iii) intentionally induce 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 such an act or omission must cause or be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 15. Section 420 deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It reads as follows: “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 capable of converting 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.” 16. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, a two-judge bench of this Court interpreted sections 415 and 420 of IPC to hold that fraudulent or dishonest intention is a precondition to constitute the offence of cheating. The relevant extract from the judgment reads thus: “14. On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest. 15. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest. 15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.” (emphasis supplied)” 10. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that no case of fraud and dishonest is made out, so far as the petitioners are concerned and in view of that, the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed. 11. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners in both the cases were in business terms. In the complaint case filed by Sandeep Jaiswal @ Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal, the allegations are made against the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.1126 of 2013 that the entire money for the work, which was discharged by him in the company, was not paid. Based on that, the complaint case has been filed, whereas, in the FIR filed by Rishi Pandey, it has been alleged that he was discharging work of the company and based on that, the petitioner has earned a lot by way of using technique of the company. 12. It is well settled that every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. 13. 12. It is well settled that every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. 13. Further for making out a case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to be proved that the accused has cheated someone, but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. 14. Admittedly, what is the property involved in both the cases is not there. In this regard, a reference may be made to the recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mariam Fasihuddin and another v. State by Adugodi Police Station and another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 58. Paragraphs 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the said judgment read as under : “22. Section 420 IPC provides that 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 valuable security, or anything, which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be liable to be punished for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Further, Section 415 IPC distinctly defines the term ‘cheating’. The provision elucidates that an act marked by fraudulent or dishonest intentions will be categorised as ‘cheating’ if it is intended to induce the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, causing damage or harm to that person. 23. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made. 24. There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made. 24. It is well known that every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. Some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC. It must also be understood that a statement of fact is deemed ‘deceitful’ when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss. ‘Cheating’ therefore, generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement. 25. The term ‘property’ employed in Section 420 IPC has a well-defined connotation. Every species of valuable right or interest that is subject to ownership and has an exchangeable value - is ordinarily understood as ‘property’. It also describes one's exclusive right to possess, use and dispose of a thing. The IPC itself defines the term ‘moveable property’ as, “intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.” Whereas immoveable property is generally understood to mean land, benefits arising out of land and things attached or permanently fastened to the earth.” 15. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that both the cases have been registered on the same date and the cases are against one and another as counter blast by them. The averment and allegation in the complain case as well as the contents of the FIR is not disclosing commission of any offence. 16. Further in Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance by way of putting the word 'cognizance' in the blank space, which suggests that there is non-application of judicial mind. 17. The averment and allegation in the complain case as well as the contents of the FIR is not disclosing commission of any offence. 16. Further in Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance by way of putting the word 'cognizance' in the blank space, which suggests that there is non-application of judicial mind. 17. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.04.2013 in connection with Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No.585/2012, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad as well as the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.02.2013 in connection with C.P. Case No.1307 of 2012, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad are quashed. 18. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and disposed of.