JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though the opposite party no.2 has put in appearance through an advocate, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the prayer on behalf of the petitioner no.1 –Agnes Selina Mandal as the petitioner no.1 has died during the pendency of the case. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as not pressed, so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned. 4. So far as the petitioner no.2 –Neelu Verma @ Neelu Prabha Rani Verma is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 that 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 the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. bearing Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 565 of 2019 (G.R. No. 2184 of 2019) involving the offences punishable under Section 420 /406/34 of the Indian Penal Code . It is next submitted that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. 5. The allegation against the petitioner no.2 is that the mother of the petitioner who was the co-accused namely Agnes Selina Mandal took Rs.8,00,000/- form the informant for completion of the process of settlement of the lease of a land for mining of materials for preparation of silica sand but after obtaining the lease, did not allow the informant to carry out mining work upon the same, instead allowed another person to carry out the mining work over the lease hold property of the co-accused –Agnes Selina Mandal. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 that only allegation against the petitioner no.2 is that at the time of negotiation between the co-accused –Agnes Selina Mandal and the informant, the petitioner accompanied her mother. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false and there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties nor there is any allegation of entrustment against the petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false and there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties nor there is any allegation of entrustment against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that neither the offence punishable under Section 420 nor 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner no.2, even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner no.2 be allowed. 7. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner no.2 in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 , paragraph no. 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) that every breach of contract would not give rise to the 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 will not amount to cheating. 9. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 /34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, perusal of the record reveals that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner no.2 of playing any deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties rather the transaction was entered into between the co-accused and the informant and the only allegation against the petitioner no.2 is of accompanying the co-accused to place of the informant. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner no.2 are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 /34 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner no.2. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by 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 , paragraph-18 of which reads as under :- “18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. 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. 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. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.” (Emphasis supplied) that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that property was retained by the accused person but it must also be shown that the accused person dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of entrustment against the petitioner nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of a property and in the absence of the same, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner no.2 are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 /34 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 13. In view of the discussions made above, since none of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered is made out against the petitioner no.2 even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, hence this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. bearing Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 565 of 2019 (G.R. No. 2184 of 2019) involving the offences punishable under Section 420 /406/34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside against the petitioner no.2. 14. Accordingly the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. bearing Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 565 of 2019 (G.R. No. 2184 of 2019) involving the offences punishable under Section 420 /406/34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside against the petitioner no.2. 15. In the result this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 16. The interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 22.01.2020 is vacated. 17. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.