JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. 2. Mr. Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 namely Arjun Prasad has left for his heavenly abode in view of that he is not pressing this petition so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned. He submits that now this petition is confined for the petitioner No. 2 namely Ashwini Kumar @ Ashwini Kr. Parwata. 3. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 12.08.2016, in connection with C. Case No. 01 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj. 4. The complaint case was lodged by the O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that he was having twelve trailer vehicles which was given on rent to the petitioner no.1 who is a transporter and he was having contract with JSPL and was to transport steel from Balkudra JSPL to Patratu railway siding. One agreement was executed in between the petitioner no.1 and the complainant and one verbal agreement was also made for transportation at the rate of 90,000 per month for each trailer. The complainant plied his vehicle under petitioner no. 1 and amount of Rs. 22,000 was to be taken by the complainant from the petitioner no.1 as the complainant had plied his vehicle for one year and the rest amount was paid by the petitioner no.1 when the complainant demanded Rs. 22,84,000 the petitioner no.1 used to make excuses. On 21/06/2016 at about 4 P.M. the complainant went to the house of the accused person for taking the money which was due. On which both the accused persons abused and assaulted the complainant. One witness Kailash Prasad Yadav was also with the complainant and they raised alarm on which persons of the locality assembled there and one Binod Kumar intervened into the matter and the complainant managed to save his life hence the complaint petition was filed on 23.06.2016 as the police failed to lodge FIR. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No. 1 was awarded the contract by the Railways for transporting the steel and the complainant was hired for transportation of the said steel. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No. 1 was awarded the contract by the Railways for transporting the steel and the complainant was hired for transportation of the said steel. He submits that a sum of Rs. 56,30,100/- was paid, in spite of that the complaint case was filed. He further submits that the petitioner No. 2 is not liable, as if any agreement was there, that was with the petitioner No. 1, who has left for his heavenly abode. He submits that the settlement has reached between the parties and to buttress his arguments, he refers to the settlement contained in Annexure-3. He further submits that the said settlement has been made between three of the partners of the firm and it was decided that the Santosh Kumar will be paid and only five lacs will be paid to the complainant. He further submits that Amarjeet Singh, who is the complainant, has already received a sum of Rs. 56,30,100/- and to buttress his arguments, he refers to the statements of the transactions, as contained at Page-25 of the petition with effect from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. He submits that in view of the deed of agreement, Santosh Kumar was required to pay, however, in connivance with the complainant, the Vinod Kumar and Santosh Kumar have become the witness in the complaint petition. On these grounds, he submits that if any case is made out, that is civil in nature and no criminal case is made out, as such, the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the case is arising out of the complaint case and the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance on the said complaint petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the allegations are there of not paying the amount in question, as such, the case is made out. He submits that the allegation of assault is also there, in view of that this court may not exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage, which can only the subject matter of trial. On these grounds, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 8. He submits that the allegation of assault is also there, in view of that this court may not exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage, which can only the subject matter of trial. On these grounds, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 8. In view of the above, the court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition, solemn affirmation as well as the settlement agreement and the statements of the transaction and the order taking cognizance. In the complaint petition, there is no affidavit and in absence of any affidavit, the complaint petition will not proceed. In the complaint petition itself, it has been disclosed that late Arjun Prasad hired the O.P. No. 2 for transportation of the steel of Jindal Steel Power Limited. It is alleged that the work of transportation was made, however, the amount of Rs. 22,84,000/- was not paid, which clearly suggests that the matter is arising out of a civil nature. The documents showing the transaction, which is available at page-25 of the petition further suggests that a sum of Rs. 56,30,100/- has been paid to Amarjeet Singh, who happened to be the complainant of the case. Thus, this is not a case that by way of inducing any contents, the O.P. no. 2 is duped and the work has been taken. The substantial amount has already been paid to the complainant. 9. In view of the above, it appears that the case relates to commercial transaction and substantial payment has already been made and if any case is there, that is civil in nature. Reference may be made to the case of Vir Prakash Sharma Versus Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373 . Para-8 of the said judgment reads as under:- “8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus: “405. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus: “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’.” Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any statement in that behalf has been made.” 10. The cheating aspect is not coming into the facts and circumstances of the present case. Reference may be made to the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. Versus State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-31 to 39 held as follows:- “31. Section 415IPC defines “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 offence 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. 32. 32. 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. 33. Section 420IPC 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.” 34. Section 420IPC 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. 35. To establish the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need to be proved: (i) The representation made by the person was false. (ii) The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false. (iii) The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made. (iv) 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. 36. As observed and held by this Court in R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam [R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 454], 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 420IPC. 37. The following observation made by this Court in Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar [Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 49] with almost similar facts and circumstances may be relevant to note at this stage : (SCC pp. 338-39, paras 6-7) 6. Now the question to be examined by us is as to whether on the facts disclosed in the petition of the complaint any criminal offence whatsoever is made out much less offences under Sections 420/120-BIPC. 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. … 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 that there was intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420IPC. 7. In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-BIPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC which it has erroneously refused.” 38. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC which it has erroneously refused.” 38. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. However, as held by this Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is criminal offence, is a fine one. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand, complaint filed by Respondent 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants. 39. In Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 498] , this Court made the following observation : (SCC pp. 297-98, para 13) “13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case, there is nothing to show 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 420IPC. In our view, the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our view, the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and the High Court committed [Maniprasad v. State of Kerala, 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 4251] an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482CrPC to quash the proceedings.”” 11. Looking into the above two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court and coming to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that a sum of Rs. 56,30,100/- has been paid by late Arjun Prasad to the complainant and the case has been lodged for recovery of Rs. 22,43,000/-. The complainant without filing any recovery proceeding, for the said amount, if any, the complaint case has been filed. A tendency has developed between the parties to avoid the civil proceedings and to cut short the proceeding, criminal cases are being filed, which is deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many cases. The case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the above judgments referred herein above and to allow the proceeding to continue will amount to an abuse of the process of law. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 12.08.2016, in connection with C. Case No. 01 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, are hereby, quashed. 13. This petition is allowed and disposed of. 14. It is made clear that if any civil proceeding is there, that will be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this court, as this order has only been passed after considering the criminality aspect of the matter.