JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 2. Though, notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No.3750 of 2018 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and also the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No.112 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dhanbad has dismissed the criminal revision which was filed for challenging the said order dated 27.06.2022 passed in C.P. Case No.3750 of 2018. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner took Rs.21,000/- as advance for selling his house to the complainant, but neither entered into any agreement but later on changed his mind and did not agree to sell his house by falsely intimating the complainant that he has already sold his house for Rs.23 Lakhs. The grievance of the complainant/opposite party no.2 is that on the assurance of the petitioner that he will sell it within date promised, the complainant got a loan sanctioned in the name of his brother-in-law by spending Rs.30,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false, there is no document to show entrustment of any money to the petitioner. It is next submitted that the trial of the Complaint Case No.3750 of 2018 is yet to begin and the case is running at the stage of appearance. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing any deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still no offence is made out against the petitioner and the complaint case has been filed only for wrecking vengeance and blackmailing the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code . It is lastly 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 it is a settled principle of law 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 the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-6 of which reads as under:- 6. “Xxxx xxxx xxxx 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) 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. The spending of money by the complainant in arranging a loan cannot constitute “parting with any money” to the petitioner after being deceived, so in the absence of this essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ; this Court has not hesitation in holding 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. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dhanbad has committed a grave error by not taking into consideration the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and erroneously dismissing the Criminal Revision No.112 of 2022. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No.3750 of 2018 as well as the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No.112 of 2022 being not sustainable in law and is quashed and set aside. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. is allowed.