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 the prayer to quash the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Protest-cum- Complaint Case No.1745 of 2018, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.684 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code . 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner entered into an agreement by the name of his partnership firm, with the proprietorship firm in the name and style of ‘M/S Maa Bhagwati Enterprises’ belonging to the complainant. According to which the complainant was to carry out the work allotted to the petitioner. The proprietorship firm of the complainant did the work and some amount was paid by the petitioner but the petitioner did not pay Rs. 2,02,04,652/-. On the basis of Complaint Case No. 1088 of 2017, filed by the complainant in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, the said complaint was referred to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, basing upon which, police registered Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 684 of 2017 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police submitted final form mentioning therein that there is lack of evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. 4. Upon filing of such final form, the complainant filed Protest-cum- Complaint Petition, which was registered as Protest-cum-Complaint Petition No. 1745 of 2018 and on the basis of the Protest-cum-Complaint Petition, statement of solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of enquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and directed issue of summons to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and another ” reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 , para-6 of which reads as under: "6. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and another ” reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 , para-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. 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) submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India therein has held that to constitute the offence of cheating the accused person must have played deceptions in the beginning of the transaction between the parties and if the intention to deceive developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors. ” reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles relating to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint and criminal proceedings. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner then relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal" reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the principles by which the Court can quash complaints and criminal proceedings under section 482 of Cr.PC. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. ” reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 wherein it has been held that the High Court has jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the criminal proceedings. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. ” reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 wherein it has been held that the High Court has jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the criminal proceedings. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner played deceptions, since the beginning of the transaction between parties. Hence, it is submitted the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC is not made out, therefore, continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of law. It is lastly submitted that prayer as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P. be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that this is out and out a case of cheating, as the petitioner dishonestly induced the complainant to part with and to invest money in carrying out the work allotted to the petitioner but did not pay the money. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed. 10. 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 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar (supra) ” the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating is that, the accused must have played deceptions since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. The admitted facts of the case are that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. It is admitted case of the complainant that the petitioner has paid considerable amount of money for the work done by the complainant through his firm. The admitted facts of the case are that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. It is admitted case of the complainant that the petitioner has paid considerable amount of money for the work done by the complainant through his firm. 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 still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.1745 of 2018, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.684 of 2017, to be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.1745 of 2018 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.684 of 2017, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 12. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.