ORDER : This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners, who are accused in C.C. No.1190/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur, seeking the following relief : For these and other grounds, which may be urged, at the time of hearing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to admit this Crl.M.C., call for the records leading to the case examine the same and quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1190/2019 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur which has its genesis in Annexure-A3 final report and thus secure ends of 2 has justice to the petitioners, in the interests of justice. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant materials. 3. In this matter, the defacto complainant, who is the Director of M/s Forido Travel and Tourism Pvt. Ltd preferred a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur, which resulted in registration of Crime No.1139/2019 of Kodungallur Police Station. It is alleged in the private complaint that the petitioners, after having common intention of gaining unjust enrichment for themselves and for causing unjust loss to the defacto complainant, entered into an agreement with an intention to cheat and defraud her. Later, the petitioners failed to perform the terms of the agreement and thereby cheated the defacto complainant and committed the offence of breach of trust also. It is on this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 415, 418, 420 read with 34 of IPC. 4. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Annexure.A4 agreement to contend that the terms of the agreement could not be materialized for justified reasons, therefore there is breach of contract, for which the remedy is to file suit for damages, since every breach of contract did not amount to breach of trust. The allegation in the Final Report won’t stand as against the petitioners. Therefore, he pressed for quashment of the proceedings. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for quashment stressing on the prosecution allegations. 6. On perusal Annexure.A4 agreement, the same would suggest that there was offer and acceptance of reciprocal promises. The allegation in the Final Report won’t stand as against the petitioners. Therefore, he pressed for quashment of the proceedings. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for quashment stressing on the prosecution allegations. 6. On perusal Annexure.A4 agreement, the same would suggest that there was offer and acceptance of reciprocal promises. But the petitioners failed to perform their part of contract. If so, the consequential event is breach of contract. Each and every breach of contract would not amount to breach of trust or cheating, unless the very intention to cheat and defraud the defacto complainant at the very inception is to be born out from the prosecution records. Merely for breach of contract, criminal proceedings would not lie and the remedy in case of breach of trust is to sue for damages. 7. In the instant case, what is made out is merely a breach of contract and not breach of trust. Since, breach of contract would not attract breach of trust or cheating, the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners are found to be unwanted. 8. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1190/2019 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur stand quashed. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court, within three days, for information and further steps.