JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No.3100 of 2021 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 504, 506, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and taken cognizance of the said offences. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 constructed a simplex (a single storied house) for the informant. As per the agreement, the petitioner no.1 was to make a construction of 1300 sq. feet but he constructed simplex of 1076 sq. feet only and also did not make available the facilities which he was supposed to provide under the agreement. The informant has paid Rs.16,25,000/-to the petitioner no.1. The informant tried to talk to the petitioner no.1 on several occasions in this respect but he did not listen. The informant thereafter, sent legal notice and also instituted a case. It is specifically alleged that on 20.02.2020 at 12:00 noon, the petitioner no.1 along with the petitioner no.2 who is the driver of the petitioner no.1 came to the locality of the informant. When the informant tried to talk to them, they abused the informant with obscene language and raised their hands upon the informant. The petitioner no.1 alleged that the husband of the informant is conspiring to kidnap the children of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.2 also abused the informant with obscene language. After this occurrence, the petitioner no.1 and his antisocial elements are following the informant and intimidating the movement of the informant to the petitioner no.1. With the apprehension that the petitioner no.1 can cause any harm to the family of the informant, the informant lodged the FIR. 4. The petitioner no.2 also abused the informant with obscene language. After this occurrence, the petitioner no.1 and his antisocial elements are following the informant and intimidating the movement of the informant to the petitioner no.1. With the apprehension that the petitioner no.1 can cause any harm to the family of the informant, the informant lodged the FIR. 4. After investigation of the case, police found the allegations for the offence punishable under Section 419, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code to be true against the petitioners and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 17.12.2021 in the said Govindpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No.3100 of 2021, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 504, 506, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gunjan Koushik vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 2050 of 2022 dated 23.11.2023 wherein, in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur & Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 , paragraph no.10 of which reads as under:- “10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [ (2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] )” and submits that like that case, in this case also, the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute resulting from breach of contract by making construction of an area less than what was to be constructed by the petitioner no.1. 6. 6. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case also, this Court relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 , paragraph no. 24 and 25 of which reads as under:- “24. This Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature. 25. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This Court in Indian Oil Corpn. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court further observed that : (Indian Oil Corpn. case [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , SCC p. 749, para 13) “13. … Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.” and submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have observed a great deal and caution in issuing the process against the petitioners. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 , paragraph no.6 of which reads as under:- “6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx 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. Xxxx xxxx xxxx 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) and submits that like that case, in this case also, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he played deception at the very inception rather the admitted case of the informant is that the petitioner no.1 has delivered a simplex house of an area of 1076 sq. feet hence, even if the allegation against the petitioners are considered to be true still, the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 has constructed more than 100 houses and duplex in the said colony and none of the owners has made any complaint or raised any grievance. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation that the intentional insult if any was of such a nature which could have provoked any person to break public peace or to commit any other offence. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners that the threatening given by the petitioners was with intent to cause alarm to anybody or to make anybody to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No.3100 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 9. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No.3100 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 9. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer of quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No.3100 of 2021 and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of cheating. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, one of the essential ingredient is that the accused must have the intention to deceive the victim since the beginning. If the intent to cheat develops later on, the same cannot amount to cheating as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra). 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of having played any deception upon the informant or anybody else since the beginning rather the admitted fact of the case, as set out by the complainant, goes to show that though there was an agreement for construction of the larger area but a house of shorter area has been delivered to the informant, by the petitioner, which obviously goes to show that the petitioner did not have any intention to deceive the complainant since the beginning otherwise there was no reason for him to deliver the house of a shorter area. So, in the absence of any deception played by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made in the FIR, the materials collected during the investigation of the case and the charge sheet submitted are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code are 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 & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 , paragraph nos. 24 and 25 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]. 25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “… The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.” A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” (Emphasis supplied) that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of 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. 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court after going through the entire materials in the record, do not find that there is any allegation against the petitioners that they intentionally insulted the informant or anybody else of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made in the FIR, the materials collected during the investigation of the case and the charge sheet submitted are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 16. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made in the FIR, the materials collected during the investigation of the case and the charge sheet submitted are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence is that threat must have been given by the accused to cause alarm to the victim or anybody else or to cause the victim to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat. 17. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court finds that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true, still there is no allegation against the petitioners to suggest that they gave any threat with intent to cause alarm to the victim or to cause the victim to do any act which she was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which she was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made in the FIR, the materials collected during the investigation of the case and the charge sheet submitted are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 19. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view the even if the entire allegations made in the FIR, the materials collected during the investigation of the case and the charge sheet submitted are considered to be true in their entirety still no offence is made out against the petitioners and continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. 20. 20. Hence, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No.3100 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 21. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No.3100 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. 22. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.