JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. By the Court:- I.A. No.4589 of 2025 Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 3. Since hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. Cr.M.P. No.2506 of 2024 Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 even though the notice has validly been served upon opposite party No.2. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash all the criminal proceedings and prosecution arising out Kunda P.S. Case No.39 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.300 of 2024, in which after submission of charge-sheet, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and prayer has also been made in this criminal miscellaneous petition, to quash the cognizance order dated 22.06.2024; the date of which has erroneously been mentioned as 22.07.2024 in the prayer portion of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant came across a person who was working between the petitioner and Reliance Jio Company. The complainant along with ten others worked as labourers under the petitioner at the rate of Rs.300 per day per person. The complainant and the other labourers were marking their attendance over which the employees of the petitioner used to pay the expenses for ration and were putting their signature on the attendance Register. On the basis of the attendance register, the payment used to be made to the petitioner and the other labourers. The petitioner paid up to July, 2016 and in the month of October, 2016, there was due in payable a sum of Rs.7,000/- and in the month of September, 2016, there was a due in payable a sum of Rs.35,000/- and apart from that for the month of October, November and till 15th December, 2016, a total wages of Rs.1,54,965/- was not paid. In February, 2017, the accused persons over mobile phone refused to pay the dues of the complainant and abused her by taking name of the caste of the complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The complainant issued a legal notice through his Advocate which was returned unserved with the endorsement that no such addressee is available. The accused-person is not receiving calls made by the complainant over mobile phone. The complainant filed Complaint Case No.442 of 2017 and upon the same being referred to police, Kunda P.S. Case No.39 of 2019 has been registered. Police took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police found that the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the said offences. Consequent upon the same, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above vide order dated 22.06.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is essentially a dispute of civil nature. It is next submitted that all the causes of action have taken place in the State of Orissa and no cause of action has taken place in the District of Chatra, Jharkhand; where the case has been instituted. It is next submitted that there is absolutely no allegation made against the petitioner in respect of the offence punishable under Section 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 and submits that in the case of Lalit Chaturvedi & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in SLP (Cr.) No.13485 of 2023 vide order dated 06.02.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the repeated judgments of the Supreme Court of India are overlooked and not being applied and enforced where the distinction between a civil wrong in the form of breach of contract, non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms; and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is at the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 and submits that 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 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated in that case that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 10. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahmood Ali & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 and submits that in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the principle of law that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances; emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 11. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submit that the allegations made against the petitioner is sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate consequent upon submission of charge-sheet. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. 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 there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of either intentionally insulting and thereby giving provocation to the complainant or anyone else intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause such person to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even after the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 13. Similarly, there is allegation against the petitioner of criminally intimidating the complainant or anyone else. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 506 is also not made out against the petitioner. 14. 13. Similarly, there is allegation against the petitioner of criminally intimidating the complainant or anyone else. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 506 is also not made out against the petitioner. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law; as has already been mentioned above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment, that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, it is necessary to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, the complainant and others were paid their wages for a considerable period of time. For some period, they were paid part of the wages and for some period, they were not paid substantial amount of their wages but there is an admission that they were paid the money for the ration by the employees of the petitioner. There is no document to show that the complainant was ever employed by the petitioner. It is not forthcoming as to who was the employee of the petitioner- who was supervising and taking attendance of the petitioner and the alleged occurrence of cheating took place in the State of Orissa but no part of the alleged cheating has taken place anywhere in the district of Chatra, Jharkhand. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 is not made out against the petitioner and this case has been instituted for wrecking vengeance and to arm twist the petitioner to pay some money to the complainant; which is claimed to be arrear wages; which essentially even if considered to be true, will amount to a breach of contract. 17. 17. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that as already indicated above, in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is that it must be shown that the accused person disposed of the property retained by him dishonestly or fraudulently. 18. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation made against the petitioner of entrustment of any money nor there is any allegation to show entrustment of any money by the complainant or anyone else for that matter nor is there any allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of money by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 is not made out against the petitioner. 19. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner; where none of the alleged occurrences has taken place in the district of Chatra in the State of Jharkhand and as none of the offences alleged is made out, hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law as basically the same has been instituted for the purpose of wrecking vengeance. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings and prosecution as well as the cognizance order dated 22.06.2024 arising out Kunda P.S. Case No.39 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.300 of 2024, be quashed and set aside. 20. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings and prosecution as well as the cognizance order dated 22.06.2024 arising out Kunda P.S. Case No.39 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.300 of 2024, is quashed and set aside. 21. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 22. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No.8440 of 2024 is disposed of being infructuous.