JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. Nobody has responded on behalf of the State, in spite of repeated calls. 2. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.01.2013, in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 264 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 2510 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 4. The complaint case was lodged by the O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that on 27.07.2005 one written agreement executed by the petitioner no.1 in favour of the opposite party no.2 in respect of land situated in Mouza No. 128, Khata No. 22, Plot No. 439 area 52 decimals, Plot No. 445 area 7½ decimals, Plot No. 46 area 21 decimals out of 15 decimals, Plot No. 46 area 5½ decimals out of 21 decimals, Plot No. 456 area 41 decimals, Plot No. 447 area 26 decimals, Plot No. 453 area 4 decimals, Plot No. 455 area 3 decimals, out of total 3 plots area 33 decimals, out of 16 decimals and all seven (7) plots total area 122½ decimals and further in the same Mouza Khata No. 35, Plot No. 444 area half share of 42 decimals 1.e. 21 decimals in both khata total area 82.05 kathas. It is alleged that the petitioner no.1 induced that he is the shareholder of the aforesaid land and the said land belongs to his grandfather Late Bhikhu Kumhar and total value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 13,500/- per katha and total Rs. 11,07,712/- (Rupees eleven lakhs seven thousand seven hundred and twelve) out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) was paid as an advance. It is further alleged that the petitioner no.1 received money from the opposite party no.2 on the different dates and put his signature on the back of the agreement and the petitioner no.2 is the son of the petitioner no.1 also received money from the opposite party no.2 and lastly on 11.03.2010 Rs. 6,86,000/- were received by both the petitioners and put the opposite party no.2 in possession of the said land as per an agreement dated 27.07.2005. 6,86,000/- were received by both the petitioners and put the opposite party no.2 in possession of the said land as per an agreement dated 27.07.2005. It is also alleged that both the petitioners have cheated the money of the opposite party no.2 with false assurance that the said land belongs to the petitioners. It is alleged that lastly on 19.11.2011 the opposite party no.2 served legal notice to the petitioner no.1 which was replied by the petitioner no.1 01.12.2011 execution in which of the he admitted agreement on the dated 27.07.2005, but the same plots under Khata No. 35 were denied to be their own and half share of the land was disclosed to be his brother Sidheshwar Kumhar. It is further alleged that after receipt of reply again the opposite party no.2 on 15.12.2011 replied the reply of the notice dated 01.12.2011 given by the petitioner no.1. Again the petitioner no.1 gave reply dated 21.12.2011 and disclosed that the period of agreement has been expired although no notice was served regarding the expiry of the period of agreement rather till 11.03.2010, the petitioners received opposite party no.2. It is further alleged that on 02.01.2012 at about 12.00 p.m. the opposite party no.2 along with his witnesses went to picnic on the said land but both the petitioners along with 4-5 unknown armed with lethal weapons came there and abused the opposite party no.2 in filthy languages and gave out with dire consequences and thereafter the opposite party no.2 was also assaulted by the men of the petitioners, on hulla they fled away and they caused mischief in throwing the articles of picnic and further it has been alleged that the petitioner no.1 snatched a gold chain valued Rs. 10,000/- and fled away and on the basis of aforesaid allegation, a complaint case was filed, which was subsequently registered as First Information Report and thereafter the police took-up the investigation in their hands. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by way of referring the contents of the complaint petition submits that the said complaint was sent by the learned court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to that the FIR was registered and the investigation was made and chargesheet was submitted and the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the order taking cognizance is not in accordance with law. He further submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case by the informant, who is a land mafia, who is trying to grab the land and property of the petitioner No. 1. He submits that the agreement was reached between the parties for transfer of land and the entire amount has not been paid by the petitioners, as such, the sale deed was not executed and the O.P. No. 2 has already instituted a title suit for specific performance being Title Suit No. 231 of 2012, which is still pending before the learned court. He submits that in view of that, the case is civil in nature, however, the chargesheet has been submitted and the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 by way of referring the contents of the complaint petition, which was later on converted into the FIR, submits that the allegations are there of not executing the sale deed, even after receiving Rs. 6,86,000/-, as such, the case is made out and the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance and at this stage, this court may not exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the High Courts are very slow in quashing of the petition, if a case is made out. 7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record. Annexure-2 is the agreement dated 27.07.2005 and in the said agreement, it was disclosed that an advance of rupees one lac is paid and total consideration amount was fixed for Rs. 11,07,712/-. Even if the version of the complainant is accepted as true, it transpires that only Rs. 6,86,000/- was paid and for whatever reason, the execution of the sale deed was not taken place. 8. Thus, prima facie, the total consideration amount was not paid to the petitioners, which was fixed for Rs. 11,07,712/- and this view was further fortified in view of the title suit instituted by the O.P. No. 2, as the schedule of payment, it is shown as Rs. 6,86,000/-. 8. Thus, prima facie, the total consideration amount was not paid to the petitioners, which was fixed for Rs. 11,07,712/- and this view was further fortified in view of the title suit instituted by the O.P. No. 2, as the schedule of payment, it is shown as Rs. 6,86,000/-. As such, the entire consideration amount was not paid to the petitioners and that is the point of dispute between the parties and for that the O.P. No. 2 has already instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 231 of 2012. This fact clearly suggests that for the civil wrong, criminal case has been filed, which is deprecated by this court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several judgments. Further the agreement was of the year 2005, wherein the complaint case was filed on 26.06.2012. 9. 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. 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. 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, (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. 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, (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 482 CrPC 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 482 CrPC 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, (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, (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.”” 10. In view of the above judgment and looking into the facts of the present case, to allow the proceeding to continue will amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.01.2013, in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 264 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 2510 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed. 12. This petition is allowed and disposed of. 13. It is made clear that so far as the pending title suit, being Title Suit No. 231 of 2012 is concerned, 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 criminal aspect of the matter.