JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to set aside the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order taking cognizance dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No.1188 of 2022. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sell of a land for Rs.14,00,000/-. The complainant paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- but the petitioner got his land sold to someone else and did not return the money. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 , and submits that it is a settled principle of law that a mere breach of promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , without there being a clear case of entrustment and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the caution to be taken against the tendency of criminalizing civil disputes. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 or 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Cr.M.P. and submit that this is a clear case of cheating. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Cr.M.P. and submit that this is a clear case of cheating. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 , para-12 of which reads as under:- “ 12 . In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any property by respondent no. 2 - complainant. The only delivery made was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sell between the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be made out.” (Emphasis supplied) has categorically held that the amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the accused persons and in that case it was also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a mere breach of contract does not constitute the offence of cheating or breach of trust. 8. It is also a settled a principle of law that unless the accused person plays deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE will not be made out, as has been held by 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 , paragraph No.6 of which reads as under:- 6. Xxxxx 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. Xxxxx 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) 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, hence, 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 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out against the petitioner. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, as already indicated above, there is no allegation of any entrustment of money to the petitioner nor is there any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property. 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 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out against the petitioner. 11. In view of the discussions made above as neither the offence punishable under Section 406 nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is made out against the petitioner, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order taking cognizance dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No.1188 of 2022, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 12. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order taking cognizance dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No.1188 of 2022, as prayed for by the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. 13. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.