JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 31.03.2017 passed in C.P. Case No.2621 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 385, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner No.1 is the brother of the complainant and the petitioner No.2 is the son of the petitioner No.1. There has not been any partition in the joint family of the petitioner No.1 and the complainant. The petitioner No.1 as Karta of the joint family property, has executed a sale-deed in respect of the joint family property claiming that the property sold is his own property and the petitioner No.1 is also claiming that there has been partition in the joint family property. It is also alleged that the petitioner No.1 executed a sale-deed in favour of the complainant in respect of one of the joint family properties consequent upon a memorandum of understanding signed between the parties claiming that the property in question is free from any encumbrance. After execution of the sale-deed, the complainant has got the said property mutated in his name and is enjoying the same but the petitioner No.1 has set up one Shiv Kumar Khemka to file a title suit by which Shiv Kumar Khemka claims to be the purchaser of the property in question from the petitioner No.1, before the same was purchased by the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420, 385, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issue of summons. 4. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420, 385, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issue of summons. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly a series of civil litigation in shape of several title suits and partition suit are pending between the parties and this admitted facts shows that this criminal case has been filed only to exert pressure on the petitioner to succumb to the illegal blackmailing and demands of the complainant. It is next submitted that the land in question was purchased by M/s Foundry Fuel Product Limited in the year 1986 by a registered sale-deed. At the relevant time, both the petitioner No.1 and the complainant were the shareholders of the same and not the Directors. The petitioner No.1 later on became the Director of the M/s Foundry Fuel Product Limited and after duly authorized by the Board of Directors, has sold and transferred the land relating to the office premises in question to the complainant and the complainant was well aware about the fact that there is a claim of title by the co-accused Shiv Kumar Khemka but without resolving the claim of Shiv Kumar Khemka, on the insistence of the complainant, the petitioner transferred the said premises. It is next submitted that the concerned sale-deed dated 29.04.1986 has never been challenged or questioned in any competent court of law and the petitioner No.1 was having title at the time of transferring the same to the complainant by the sale deed dated 29.04.1986. Though the petitioner No.1 executed the sale-deed in capacity of the Director of the company but the company has not been made an accused. It is then submitted that the title in respect of land in question is to be decided by the competent civil court and merely because Shiv Kumar Khemka has raised a claim, it cannot be said that the petitioner No.1 did not have any title on the date of execution of the sale-deed in favour of the complainant in terms of the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company. It is next submitted that besides this case, the complainant has also instituted Complaint Case No. 2703 of 2014. It is next submitted that besides this case, the complainant has also instituted Complaint Case No. 2703 of 2014. It is next submitted that admittedly the joint family property has been partitioned. It is further submitted that the complainant has suppressed the 40 years old document of partial partition by the Memorandum of Family Arrangement dated 30.12.1981; though the same has not been disputed by the complainant in his counter-affidavit filed in this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No.138 of 2015 and W.P. (Cr.) No.239 of 2015. It is next submitted that a complete and total partition and separation of B. L. Agarwalla (HUF) took place on 30.12.1981 between the complainant and his four brothers which was duly recorded in a memorandum dated 02.02.1982 duly signed by the all the brothers including the complainant and his mother and the list of assets falling in each member’s share were annexed as the schedule to the Memorandum. It is next submitted that the factum of partition of B. L. Agarwalla (HUF) was also recorded by the Income Tax Authorities when matters were placed for its assessment under the law and vide order dated 14.01.1983, the claim of partition was gone into and allowed after recording that with each member including the complainant has affirmed the fact that the partition has taken place and has got their share. It is next submitted that the complainant in written-statement filed in Title Suit No.40 of 2003 of the court of Sub-Judge VII, Dhanbad has categorically admitted about the family partition in para-15 of his written-statement. The complainant sold all his share with M/s BLA Industries Private Limited on 27.09.1991 and also sold the shares of him, his wife and minor sons in M/s Anup Malleables Limited for valuable consideration to M/s. B. L. Agarwalla & and Sons Pvt. Ltd. with which complainant has no connection whatsoever at that time. The complainant also filed Title Suit No.78 of 2011 regarding his dispute relating to Yashoban Sahakari Grih Nirman Samity Limited also which was dismissed under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned court on 28.07.2017. It is then submitted that the complainant got initiated a proceedings under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. in respect of land but the SDO dropped the proceeding vide order dated 04.04.2011. It is then submitted that the complainant got initiated a proceedings under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. in respect of land but the SDO dropped the proceeding vide order dated 04.04.2011. The complainant has also filed Title (Partition) Suit No.151 of 2013 and the petitioner appeared in that suit and there has never been any stay order passed by the court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thermax Limited & Others vs. K. M. Johny & Others reported in (2011) 13 SCC 412 para-37 of which reads as under:- “37. It is settled law that the essential ingredient for an offence under Section 420, which we have already extracted, is that there has to be dishonest intention to deceive another person. We have already quoted the relevant allegations in the complaint and perusal of the same clearly shows that no such dishonest intention can be seen or even inferred inasmuch as the entire dispute pertains to contractual obligations between the parties. Since the very ingredients of Section 420 are not attracted, the prosecution initiated is wholly untenable. Even if we admit that allegations in the complaint do make out a dispute, still it ought to be considered that the same is merely a breach of contract and the same cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction. Inasmuch as there are number of documents to show that the appellant Company had acted in terms of the agreement and in a bona fide manner, it cannot be said that the act of the appellant Company amounts to a breach of contract.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code there has to be dishonest intention to deceive another person and a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal proceeding unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Limited & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 228 paragraph-8 of which reads as under:- “8. The substance of the complaint is to be seen. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Limited & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 228 paragraph-8 of which reads as under:- “8. The substance of the complaint is to be seen. Mere use of the expression “cheating” in the complaint is of no consequence. Except mention of the words “deceive” and “cheat” in the complaint filed before the Magistrate and “cheating” in the complaint filed before the police, there is no averment about the deceit, cheating or fraudulent intention of the accused at the time of entering into MOU wherefrom it can be inferred that the accused had the intention to deceive the complainant to pay. According to the complainant, a sum of Rs 3,05,39,086 out of the total amount of Rs 3,38,62,860 was paid leaving balance of Rs 33,23,774. We need not go into the question of the difference of the amounts mentioned in the complaint which is much more than what is mentioned in the notice and also the defence of the accused and the stand taken in reply to notice because the complainant's own case is that over rupees three crores was paid and for balance, the accused was giving reasons as above-noticed. The additional reason for not going into these aspects is that a civil suit is pending inter se the parties for the amounts in question.” and submits that in a complaint involving the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, specific averments about deceit, cheating or fraudulent intention of the accused at the time of entering into the Memorandum of Understanding wherefrom it can be inferred that the accused had the intention to deceive the complainant to pay, is to be made. Hence, it submitted that no offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. 7. It is next submitted that in the civil suit matters, no such allegation as made in the complaint, has been averred and the same is a relevant factor for showing the falsity of the complainant’s case. Hence, it submitted that no offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. 7. It is next submitted that in the civil suit matters, no such allegation as made in the complaint, has been averred and the same is a relevant factor for showing the falsity of the complainant’s case. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited & Others vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & Another reported in (2007) 14 SCC 776 paragraph-16 of which reads as under:- “16. [Ed. : Para 16 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./86/2008 dated 18-10-2008.] 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 Respondent 1-plaintiff 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 simpliciter 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 correct, take into consideration 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. 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.” and submits that it is a settled principle of law that for the purpose of finding whether the allegations made in the complaint is taken to be correct in its entirety or not, the Court may not only take into consideration the admitted facts but it is also permissible to look into the pleadings of the accused persons in civil suits between the parties, instituted prior to the criminal case. It is next submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has deprecated that cases of this nature where the dispute is purely and predominantly civil in nature; a cloak of criminal offence ought not to be given to it. 8. It is next submitted that no offence punishable under Section 385 or 504 of the Indian Penal Code is made out either. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 31.03.2017 passed in C.P. Case No.2621 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.02 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 31.03.2017 passed in C.P. Case No.2621 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad and submit that there is ample material in record to suggest that the petitioners have deliberately and dishonestly induced the complainant to part with Rs.5,80,000/- for the purpose of executing the sale-deed. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 further submits that the petitioners have not acted upon the terms and conditions including clause No.06 of MOU dated 09.01.2012 thereof. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 385, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 further submits that the petitioners have not acted upon the terms and conditions including clause No.06 of MOU dated 09.01.2012 thereof. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 385, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the admitted case of both the complainant and the petitioner No.1 that there was some dispute regarding the property sold by the petitioner No.1 to the complainant as the claim was made by Shiv Kumar Khemka and knowing pretty well that there is such dispute, the complainant was insisting that Shiv Kumar Khemka be made a party to the said sale transaction between the petitioner No.1 and the complainant but the petitioner No.1 declined to execute the sale-deed making Shiv Kumar Khemka a party to the said sale transaction because he was not in a position to ensure that Shiv Kumar Khemka also participates in execution of the sale-deed but the complainant got the petitioner No. 1 pressurized and got the sale-deed executed. Nowhere in the complaint, in the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant or in the statement of the enquiry witnesses, it has been averred that the petitioner No.1 did not have the title in respect of property which has been sold by him to the complainant. The only grievance of the complainant is that even though consequent upon the sale-deed, the land has been mutated in his name but subsequently Shiv Kumar Khemka has filed a suit claiming ownership over the property sold and the complainant is under the impression that the petitioner No.1 has set up Shiv Kumar Khemka for creating a litigation and harassing the complainant. As has right been mentioned above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code it has to be established that the accused had the intention to cheat since the very inception and if the intention to cheat has developed later on the same will not constitute the offence of cheating as has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and Another reported (2005) 10 SCC 336 in para-6 of which reads 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. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. 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) 11. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the only grievance of the complainant is that the petitioner No.1 after getting one sale-deed executed; undisputedly over which he was having right, title and interest and consequent upon execution of sale-deed, the land has been mutated in the name of the purchaser being the complainant; has set up Shiv Kumar Khemka to create litigation and that title suit instituted by Shiv Kumar Khemka is still sub-judice. No Court has declared the right, title and interest of the Shiv Kumar Khemka over the property in question. There is no allegation against the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 dishonestly induced the complainant to part with any property. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that the ingredients of the offence under Section 385 of Indian Penal Code are: (i) the accused put or attempted to put any person in fear of injury (ii) the putting of person in such fear must be intentional (iii) the accused must thereby induced the person so put in fear to deliver to any person in property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security and such inducement must be done dishonestly as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of R.S. Nayak vs. A. R. Antulay & Another reported in AIR 1986 SC 2045 as also in the case of Abdulvahab Abdulmajid Shaikh & Others v. State of Gujarat reported in (2007) 4 SCC 257 . 13. It is also a settled principle of law that the offence of extortion is carried out by over-powering the will of the owner. 13. It is also a settled principle of law that the offence of extortion is carried out by over-powering the will of the owner. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners of putting or attempting to put the complainant or anyone else in fear of injury. The offer made in a conversation between the parties that my way or no way; cannot be termed as putting or attempting to put any person in fear of injury. Hence, under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made against the petitioners even if considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 para-24 of which reads as under:- “24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] . The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] . (Emphasis supplied) that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, the intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. 15. Now, coming to the facts of the case there is no allegation against the petitioners of having intentionally insulted the complainant or anyone else nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of giving any provocation to the complainant intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him or someone else to break public peace and in the absence of any material regarding these essential ingredients, this Court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even if the allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses are taken to be true in their entirety. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as no offence punishable under Sections 420, 385, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceedings against them will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 31.03.2017 passed in C.P. Case No.2621 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside. 17. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 31.03.2017 passed in C.P. Case No.2621 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, as prayed for by the petitioners, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 18. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. 19. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, interim relief granter earlier vide order dated 06.01.2020, stands vacated. 20. 18. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. 19. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, interim relief granter earlier vide order dated 06.01.2020, stands vacated. 20. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of being infructuous.