JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 2. Though, notice has validly been 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 a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 31.03.2017 passed in C.P. Case No.2621 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 385, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner has been set up by the co-accused persons one of whom is the brother of the complainant to file a title suit by claiming to be a purchaser of the property from the brother of the complainant, who is the co-accused namely Devendra Kumar Agarwalla. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420, 385, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Agarwalla and Another vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.4362 of 2018 dated 12.04.2024 submits that admittedly a series of litigation in the shape of several title suits and a partition suit are pending between the co- accused persons and the complainant and these admitted facts shows that this criminal case has been filed only to exert pressure on the petitioner to succumb to the illegal blackmailing and demands of the complainant. It is next submitted that the land in question was purchased by M/s Foundry Fuel Product Limited in the year 1986 by a registered sale-deed. At the relevant time, both the co-accused namely Devendra Kumar Agarwalla and the complainant were the shareholders of the said company and not the Directors. It is next submitted that the land in question was purchased by M/s Foundry Fuel Product Limited in the year 1986 by a registered sale-deed. At the relevant time, both the co-accused namely Devendra Kumar Agarwalla and the complainant were the shareholders of the said company and not the Directors. Devendra Kumar Agarwalla later on became the Director of the M/s Foundry Fuel Product Limited and after duly authorized by the Board of Directors, has sold and transferred the land relating to the office premises in question to the complainant and the complainant was well aware about the fact that there is a claim of title by the petitioner over the said property but without resolving the claim of the petitioner, on the insistence of the complainant, the co-accused namely Devendra Kumar Agarwalla transferred the said property to the complainant. It is next submitted that merely because the petitioner has raised a claim, it cannot be said that he has committed any offence. It is next submitted that admittedly the joint family property has been partitioned. It is further submitted that the complainant has suppressed the 40 years old document of partial partition by the Memorandum of Family Arrangement dated 30.12.1981; though the same has not been disputed by the complainant in his counter-affidavit filed in this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No.138 of 2015 and W.P. (Cr.) No.239 of 2015. It is next submitted that the factum of partition of B. L. Agarwalla (HUF) was also recorded by the Income Tax Authorities when matters were placed for its assessment, under the law and vide order dated 14.01.1983, the claim of partition was gone into and allowed after recording that with each member including the complainant has affirmed the fact that the partition has taken place and has got their share. It is next submitted that the complainant in his written-statement filed in Title Suit No.40 of 2003 of the court of Sub-Judge VII, Dhanbad has categorically admitted about the family partition in para-15 of his written-statement. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thermax Limited & Others vs. K. M. Johny & Others reported in (2011) 13 SCC 412 para-37 of which reads as under:- “37. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thermax Limited & Others vs. K. M. Johny & Others reported in (2011) 13 SCC 412 para-37 of which reads as under:- “37. It is settled law that the essential ingredient for an offence under Section 420, which we have already extracted, is that there has to be dishonest intention to deceive another person. We have already quoted the relevant allegations in the complaint and perusal of the same clearly shows that no such dishonest intention can be seen or even inferred inasmuch as the entire dispute pertains to contractual obligations between the parties. Since the very ingredients of Section 420 are not attracted, the prosecution initiated is wholly untenable. Even if we admit that allegations in the complaint do make out a dispute, still it ought to be considered that the same is merely a breach of contract and the same cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction. Inasmuch as there are number of documents to show that the appellant Company had acted in terms of the agreement and in a bona fide manner, it cannot be said that the act of the appellant Company amounts to a breach of contract.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code there has to be dishonest intention to deceive another person right from the beginning of the transaction and a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal proceeding unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction. 7. It is next submitted that in civil suit matters, no such allegation as made in the complaint, has been averred and the same is a relevant factor for showing the falsity of the complainant’s case. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited & Others vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & Another reported in (2007) 14 SCC 776 paragraph-16 of which reads as under:- “16. [Ed. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited & Others vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & Another reported in (2007) 14 SCC 776 paragraph-16 of which reads as under:- “16. [Ed. : Para 16 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./86/2008 dated 18-10-2008.] We are of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, do not disclose an offence. For the said purpose, this Court may not only take into consideration the admitted facts but it is also permissible to look into the pleadings of Respondent 1-plaintiff in the suit. No allegation whatsoever was made against the appellants herein in the notice. What was contended was negligence and/or breach of contract on the part of the carriers and their agent. Breach of contract simpliciter does not constitute an offence. For the said purpose, allegations in the complaint petition must disclose the necessary ingredients therefor. Where a civil suit is pending and the complaint petition has been filed one year after filing of the civil suit, we may for the purpose of finding out as to whether the said allegations are prima facie correct, take into consideration the correspondences exchanged by the parties and other admitted documents. It is one thing to say that the Court at this juncture would not consider the defence of the accused but it is another thing to say that for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, it is impermissible also to look to the admitted documents. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice.” and submits that it is a settled principle of law that for the purpose of finding whether the allegations made in the complaint is taken to be correct in its entirety or not, the Court may not only take into consideration the admitted facts but it is also permissible to look into the pleadings of the accused persons in civil suits between the parties, instituted prior to the criminal case. It is next submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has deprecated that cases of this nature where the dispute is purely and predominantly civil in nature are given the cloak of criminal offence. 8. It is next submitted that no offence punishable under Section 385 or 504 of the Indian Penal Code or any other offence for which prima facie case has been found inter alia against the petitioner is made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 9. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Cr.M.P. and submit that there is ample material in record to suggest that the petitioner has committed the offences for which the prima facie case has been found by the trial court. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition, 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 it is the admitted case of both the complainant and the co-accused Devendra Kumar Agarwalla that there were some dispute regarding the property sold by Devendra Kumar Agarwalla to the complainant as the claim was made by petitioner and knowing pretty well that there is such dispute, the complainant was insisting that the petitioner be made a party to the said sale transaction between the Devendra Kumar Agarwalla and the complainant but the Devendra Kumar Agarawalla declined to execute the sale-deed making the petitioner as party to the said sale transaction, because he was not in a position to ensure that the petitioner also participates in execution of the sale-deed but the complainant got Devendra Kumar Agarwalla pressurized and got the sale-deed executed. Nowhere in the complaint, in the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant or in the statement of the enquiry witnesses, it has been averred that the petitioner has any role in the commission of any offence by the co-accused persons. Nowhere in the complaint, in the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant or in the statement of the enquiry witnesses, it has been averred that the petitioner has any role in the commission of any offence by the co-accused persons. The only grievance of the complainant against the petitioner is that even though consequent upon the sale-deed, the land has been mutated in his name but subsequently the petitioner has filed a suit claiming ownership over the property sold and the complainant is under the impression that the Devendra Kumar Agarwalla has set up the petitioner for creating a litigation and harassing the complainant. There is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving or thereby dishonestly inducing the complainant to part with any property etc. In the absence of that, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner and the entire criminal proceeding has been quashed against the co-accused persons vide judgement of this Court passed in Cr.M.P. No.4362 of 2018 dated 12.04.2024 (Supra), so even with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code also the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. It is the admitted case of the complaint that the suit filed by the petitioner is still sub-judice. There is no allegation against the petitioner of putting or attempting to put any person in fear of injury intentionally nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, to anybody. So, even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the same is that there must be intentional insult of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. 12. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the same is that there must be intentional insult of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. 12. Now, coming to the facts of the case there is no allegation against the petitioner of having intentionally insulting anybody so as to provoke any person to break public peace or to commit any other offence. In the absence of the same, even if 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. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as none of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 385, 504, even when read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is made out against the petitioner and as already indicated above, the entire criminal proceeding has already been quashed against the only two co-accused persons, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceedings against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 31.03.2017 passed in C.P. Case No.2621 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 31.03.2017 passed in C.P. Case No.2621 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, as prayed for by the petitioners, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 15. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. 16. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of being infructuous.