ORDER : M. Nagaprasanna, J. The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.131 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w. 34 of the IPC and pending before the 4 th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R. Swaroop Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The 2 nd respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered on 17-05-2022 alleging that, the 2 nd respondent is a sub-contractor and a holder of sub-contract agreement with M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’ for short) for supply, installation and commissioning for plumbing, electrical and other works to the Sea Bird Residential Project, a Naval project at Karwar. It is the case of the complainant that petitioners are the representatives of the Company and the Company is in the business of construction infrastructure and real estate. On 07.12.2018, the officials of the Company represented to the 2 nd respondent that the Company has been awarded contract from Indian Navy to design and construct residential buildings and township along with related common facilities, trunk infrastructure and utility through design – Project Seabird at Naval Base, Karwar (hereinafter referred as ‘the project’ for short). The Company on the same day is said to have expressed its willingness to sub-contract the work to any interested and capable party by way of tender. Based on the contract specification given by the Indian Navy, the Company through the petitioners represented that it is sub-contracting the work of Indian Navy. It is then, the complainant/2 nd respondent and the petitioners enter into a sub-contract. The complainant participated in the tender and the Company awarded the tender to the 2 nd respondent/complainant for construction. 4. It is the contention in the complaint that through various work orders the petitioners sub-contracted the work of the said project to the 2 nd respondent. It is then, the complainant/2 nd respondent and the petitioners enter into a sub-contract. The complainant participated in the tender and the Company awarded the tender to the 2 nd respondent/complainant for construction. 4. It is the contention in the complaint that through various work orders the petitioners sub-contracted the work of the said project to the 2 nd respondent. Under the terms of work orders, it was agreed between the parties that officials of the Company are liable to pay 95% of the bill amount for the works executed by the complainant within 30 days from the date on which the complainant submits the running bill to the Company. The remaining 5% of the bill amount from each work orders shall be retained by the Company. The complaint further narrates that the complainant began to execute the project by purchasing raw material from third parties for which third parties raised invoices against the complainant. The complainant then invested huge sums of money and paid all those bills. The 2 nd respondent used to raise running bills as obtaining in the agreement and part payments were being made by the Company. The Company represented by the petitioners is said to have defaulted in making further payments and the total amount outstanding to be paid as on the date of registration of the complaint was Rs.3,18,77,169.36. Since bills were not paid and the Company wanted to escape liability, the complainant registers the complaint. The registration of the complaint drives these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 5. This Court has stalled further investigation by granting interim order against these petitioners on the score that offence of cheating would not get attracted in the case at hand, which is subsisting even as on date. 6. The learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar, appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the issue in the lis is with regard to an agreement and breach of an agreement. The 2 nd respondent/complainant registers claim before the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MSME Council’ for short) and the matter is said to be pending before the MSME Council. After having done so, the complainant seeks to set the criminal law into motion by registering a complaint on 17-05-2022 for the aforesaid alleged breach of agreement. After having done so, the complainant seeks to set the criminal law into motion by registering a complaint on 17-05-2022 for the aforesaid alleged breach of agreement. The learned senior counsel would contend that criminal law cannot be set into motion for the purpose of recovery of money. The remedy available to the respondent / complainant is not availed of and therefore, registration of crime cannot but be said to be a mala fide action on the part of the complainant. He would seek that the petition be allowed and crime be quashed. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri R. Swaroop Anand, appearing for the 2 nd respondent/complainant would though accept the fact that the issue arises out of an agreement and its breach or the payment and breach of its schedule, contends that the Company has received all the moneys from the builder. Having received moneys that belong to the complainant, the Company has not paid it to the complainant. Therefore, it becomes a case of criminal breach of trust and since the complainant has been lured in entering into a contract with the Company after participating in the tender and huge amounts have not been paid, it would amount to cheating as obtaining under Section 420 of the IPC. He would seek to place reliance upon several e-mail communications to contend that the petitioners are now refusing to pay the sum of Rs.3,18,77,169.36 and the Company as on date owes Rs.4,23,75,518/- inclusive of interest. The learned counsel would contend that the Company has received the entire amount from Indian Navy and has not paid it to the complainant which would amount to both criminal breach of trust and cheating as the case is sought to be made out by the complainant. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 8. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, representing the State would also toe the lines of the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent in contending that the matter is still at the stage of investigation. A perusal of the complaint would clearly bear the ingredients of offences that are laid against the petitioners. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the crime should be permitted to be investigated into and the petitioners may avail of any remedy available to them in law in case charge sheet would be filed against them. 9. A perusal of the complaint would clearly bear the ingredients of offences that are laid against the petitioners. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the crime should be permitted to be investigated into and the petitioners may avail of any remedy available to them in law in case charge sheet would be filed against them. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 10. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record.The Company is said to have received a work order from the hands of Indian Navy for construction of the subject project. After receipt of the work order from Indian Navy, it is a matter of record that the petitioners hand out tender notification for supply, installations, testing and commissioning of MEP package. The sub-contractor enquiry document is appended to the statement of objections. The complainant being interested to secure sub-contract from the hands of the Company, participates in the sub-contract enquiry proceedings and is awarded sub-contract for the following project: “ Name of Project: Design & Construction of Residential Buildings/Towers and Townships along with related common facilities, Trunk infrastructure and utilities through Design – Build works Contract (DB-01)” - Project Seabird, Phase-IIA at Naval Base, Karwar, Karnataka, India .” The arrangement between the petitioners and the complainant was that 95% of the amount shall be paid as against running bills on invoices raised and 5% after completion of the project. The arrangement goes wrong which puts the complainant in doldrums as the complainant is said to have procured raw materials from various third parties by making payment on the strength of the agreement so entered into between the parties. The schedule of payment or the manner of payment is said to have been breached by the Company which led the complainant to incur huge loss. It is also said that the complainant had approached MSME Council against the petitioners and the proceedings did not result in any favourable order in favour of the complainant. It is at that juncture, the complainant registers the complaint on 17 th May, 2022. 11. Since the entire issue has sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It is at that juncture, the complainant registers the complaint on 17 th May, 2022. 11. Since the entire issue has sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows: “TMSPL/Legal/101 17 th May 2022 To The Station House Office Hennur Police Station Bangalore STATEMENT OF CASE IS SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF HONORABLE HENNUR POLICE INSPECTOR, BANGALORE Respected Sir,. I, Anish PC, Director of Trinity MEP Services Pvt. Ltd., humbly submitting our grievous to the following for your kind perusal, consideration and favorable action in respect of non- payment of Rupees 4,23,75,517-00 (Four Crore Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred and Seventeen Only) by M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. For the Mechanical and Electrical works what we have carried out with various work order viz 24836, 4148/007, 4148/010, 4148/25. 4151/029 At Sea Bird Project Karwar and APGC project at Amaravathi. We are doing sub contract works to various clients such as Godrej, L&T, Embassy, Phoenix, Shapoorji & Pallonji Company Pvt. Ltd. (SPCL) etc. We are doing some MEP works of Seabird project, Karwar under SPCL, Soorya Chambers, Murugesh Palya, Old Airport Road, Bangalore for last 3.5 years. We have the following work orders from SPCL in respect of Seabird site:- Sl. No Work Order No. WO Pertains to WO Amount Remarks 1 24836 Mockup 14,58,623 Work Completed and in use by client 2 4148/007 Electrical External 1,31,55,926 Work Completed for 2 towers and in use by client 3 4148/010 Re-Routing works 41,30,366 Work Completed 4 21873 Kamat Bay 22,49,643 Work Completed and in use by client 5 4151/033 Engineers Building 77,54,494 Work Completed and in use by client 6 4148/025 WOMC Buildings MEP Works 7,35,44,866 Out of four tower two tower completed balance two tower partial work completed 7 4151/029 External Electrical Works 1,02,53,816 Work Completed for 2 towers and in use by client. Till October 2020, there were no sufficient civil construction clearances for continuous work. However, as a good gesture we continued to work at those locations wherever clearances were available, along with supply of required materials. As per the work order mentioned in the above table, the scope of work includes Plumbing, Electrical and HVAC works for Tower No. 22, 23, 27 and 28 and other site office. However, as a good gesture we continued to work at those locations wherever clearances were available, along with supply of required materials. As per the work order mentioned in the above table, the scope of work includes Plumbing, Electrical and HVAC works for Tower No. 22, 23, 27 and 28 and other site office. There was no much progress in civil works till October 2020 and SPCL has requested us to complete Tower-22 and Tower-23 MEP works within a span of four to five months. We had agreed to finish the work as soon as possible, based on civil construction clearances. The Work Order issued to us with the payment terms of within 30 days payment immediately after delivery of materials at site later our site meeting on 12 th October 2020, SPCL Bangalore Regional Head, Mr. Prashanth Khare, assured us that materials supply amount would be paid within Ten days (Copy of MOM attached herewith) to meet the target and to recover the delay in the project. In line with that they have done some certification of bills, and we had supplied further high value items. These certifications were done to gain our confidence. As we started supplying the high value items, SPCL started refusing to sign our bills from the month of December 2020, by citing the reasons of:- (a) Non-availability of funds. (b) SPCL is in loss due to under quoting for the works with Sea Bird. (c) Expected penalty by Indian Navy since there was huge delays in executing the township works (SPCL had executed only two high rise buildings out of 40 high-rise buildings and external developments works). (d) The signed copy of the work order has not submitted to SPCL. But recently they sent a letter to us in which photocopy of a page of the same work order was enclosed. Meanwhile, we have intimated SPCL that we are ready to provide a photocopy of the work order that we have. The non-certification or non-payment of bills is intentional and the same is made with malafide intention to cheat us. From the first day of the contract they very purpose is to cheat us by getting the work done from us as per their satisfaction and by inducing using believing that they honor the contract. The non-certification or non-payment of bills is intentional and the same is made with malafide intention to cheat us. From the first day of the contract they very purpose is to cheat us by getting the work done from us as per their satisfaction and by inducing using believing that they honor the contract. A classic example, the negotiation is done without Performance Bank Guarantee(PBG) clause for the better rate but later they Withhold the entire amount of 32 Lakhs without any acceptance. One point of time they destroyed the work order itself and delayed our bill certification. Without Certifying the bills and payment they started engaged another contractor for work with our materials. They broke our store and taken the materials whatever they want for their requirement without pay us. We have an approved payment schedule, proposed and approved by SPCL themselves. The copy of the same is enclosed here with for your kind perusal. But even materials supply part is not being certified by SPCL after receipt of materials at site from December 2020. As per MSME norms, bill amount has to be cleared within forty-five days. SPCL is delaying the bill certification so as to avoid any legal implications that may arise at a later stage. Since we are under MSME registered organization the buyer is to make payment on or before the date agreed on between seller and buyer shall not exceed more than 45 days. In this regard the relevant RBI circular, IECD/5/08.12.01/2000-01 dated October 16, 2000(reiterated on May 30, 2003, vide circular No.IECD.No.20/08.12.01/2002-03) available on RBI website. Countless time We tried contacting them through personal visit at their Regional office, Site office at Karwar, mail, telephone etc. But always we get either false commitments of payment and bill certification. If we wait at their reception to meeting any of their senior person from morning to evening no person was there resolve our issue Even Nobody, ask why did you sit here. The security at reception always says that Sir is in meeting in case they came to knew that we were waiting at reception they were using another lift to escape. If we met them at parking slot or somewhere they will instruct that go to Site at Kawar they will settle. The security at reception always says that Sir is in meeting in case they came to knew that we were waiting at reception they were using another lift to escape. If we met them at parking slot or somewhere they will instruct that go to Site at Kawar they will settle. when we went to site at karwar they were ask why did you come as we have no money and our Region office they will settle you. using this tactic, they were cheating us last two years. We would like to bring the following points for your kind perusal: - 1. Rupees 4,23,75,517-00(Four Crore Twenty-Three Lakhs Seventy-Five Thousand Five Hundred and Seventeen Only) the interest calculation done up to 5 th April 2022. based on the latest mail forwarded to SPCL 2. Due to the non-payment, our vendors are creating problems in our office. 3. Due to non-payment by SPCL, our credibility in the market is damaged. 4. We suffered huge losses due to lack of work clearances till October 2020 (due to idle manpower). 5. We have to pay to our vendors, who have supplied materials to SPCL. In view of the above facts, we request your kind support and intervention to register the complaint against the below mention persons and take legal action against them to release the pending payment 1. Mr Prasanth Khare - Regional Project in charge Contact No- 9591304444 2. Mr Krishnamachari Balaji Commercial in charge -Contact No 9538872078 3. Mr Sushant Panda - Accounts in charge – Contact No.9100993665 4. Mr. Israr Ahmend Project Head- Contact No-6366018786 5. Mr. Madhu Rao – GM Projects – Contact No7381020901 Requesting your kind Consideration for the above request Enclosures 1. Work Order copies 2. Payment terms 3. Pending Bill Copies Yours faithfully, Anish PC Sd/- Director Trinity MEP Services Pvt. Ltd. S/o P.G.Chacko Age – 39 C1. #34/2, Royal Suits Hennur Cross, Kalyan Nagar Bangalore – 560 043 9916308800” (Emphasis added) The complaint narrates minute details of the transactions between the petitioners and the complainant and as on the date of registration of the complaint, an amount of Rs.4,23,75,517/- was to be paid by the Company to the complainant. Due to non- payment what has happened is what is narrated in the complaint. The moment complaint is registered, the petitioners are before this Court. 12. Due to non- payment what has happened is what is narrated in the complaint. The moment complaint is registered, the petitioners are before this Court. 12. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the agreement between the Company and the complainant has Sub-clause 20.6 in it, which deals with arbitration. The dispute of any amount between the parties is to be arbitrated is the agreement. The Sub-clause of settlement of dispute through arbitration reads as follows: “ Sub-Clause 20.6 Delete this Sub-clause entirely and – Arbitration: replace with following: “Any dispute in respect of which the decision(s), if any, of the DAB has not become final and binding pursuant to Sub-Clause 20.4 shall be finally settled by arbitration as set forth below: (i) A dispute shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 or any statutory amendment thereof. (ii) The arbitral tribunal shall consist of 3 (three) arbitrators, one each to be appointed by the Employer and the Contractor. The third arbitrator shall be chosen by the two arbitrators so appointed by the Parties and shall act as presiding arbitrator. (iii) If one of the Parties fail to appoint its arbitrator pursuant to sub-paras (i) and (ii) above, within 30 days after receipt of the notice of the appointment of its arbitrator by the other party, then the appointing authority specified in the ‘Appendix to Tender’ shall appoint the arbitrator. (iv) In case of failure of the two arbitrators, appointed by the Parties to reach upon a consensus within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the arbitrator appointed subsequently, the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the appointing authority as specified in the Appendix to Tender. (v) Where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced. (vi) Arbitration proceedings shall be held at Delhi or at any other place agreed between the parties. (vii) The language of the arbitration proceedings and that of all documents and communications between the parties and the arbitral tribunal shall be English. (vi) Arbitration proceedings shall be held at Delhi or at any other place agreed between the parties. (vii) The language of the arbitration proceedings and that of all documents and communications between the parties and the arbitral tribunal shall be English. (viii) The arbitral tribunal shall have full power to open up, review and revise any decision, opinion, instruction, determination, certificate or valuation of the Engineer and any decision(s) of the DAB related to the dispute. (ix) Neither party shall be limited in the proceedings before such tribunal to the evidence or arguments before the Board for the purpose of obtaining its decision(s) pursuant to Sub- Clause 20.4. No decision of the DAB shall disqualify any DAB member from being called as a witness and giving evidence before the arbitrator(s) on any matter whatsoever relevant to the dispute. (x) Arbitration may be commenced prior to or after completion of the Works, provided that the objections of the Employer, the Engineer, the Contractor and the Board shall not be altered by reason of the arbitration being conducted during the progress of the Works. (xi) The cost and expenses of arbitration proceedings will be paid as determined by the arbitral tribunal. However, the expenses incurred by each party in connection with the preparation, presentation, etc., of its proceedings as also the fees and expenses paid to the arbitrator appointed by such party or on its behalf shall be borne by each party itself. (xii) The decision of the arbitral tribunal shall be made by a majority of all its members. (xiii) Recourse against the arbitral award(s) shall be limited to jurisdictions of courts in Delhi only.” (Emphasis added) Any dispute arising out of the agreement is to be settled in arbitration proceedings in terms of the afore-quoted Sub-clause. 13. The issue now would be, whether further investigation in the teeth of Sub-clause of arbitration and claim for recovery of money should be permitted or otherwise. The Apex Court in plethora of judgments has elucidated the law that criminal law should not be set into motion and if the criminal law is set into motion, it cannot be permitted to be continued for the purpose of recovery of money. There can be no qualm about the principle so laid down by the Apex Court in plethora of judgments. There can be no qualm about the principle so laid down by the Apex Court in plethora of judgments. The case at hand pertains to offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Section 406 of the IPC has its ingredients in Section 405 of the IPC. Both Sections 406 and 405 of the IPC read as follows: “ 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust .— Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 405. Criminal breach of trust .— Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. [Explanation 1.—A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not] who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. Explanation 2.—A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. Illustrations (a) A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide the effects according to the will, and appropriates them to his own use. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (b) A is a warehouse-keeper. Z, going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (c) A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according to Z's direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to invest the same in Company's paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the money in his own business. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (d) But if A, in the last illustration, not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be more for Z's advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys Z's directions, and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying Company's paper, here, though Z should suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of that loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust. (e) A, a revenue officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. (e) A, a revenue officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (f) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the property. A has committed criminal breach of trust.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 405 of the IPC bears the ingredients of criminal breach of trust. A person who misappropriates to himself an amount which is belonging to the victim, who has entrusted to the accused and on such entrustment, the amount is misappropriated with dishonest intention, it would become an offence under Section 406 of the IPC. In the case at hand, the entire narration in the complaint is that the Company has received the entire amount from the Indian Navy. That amount legally belongs to the complainant as he is the sub-contractor from the hands of the petitioners. Having received the money that belongs to the complainant, the petitioners have not parted with the amount. 14. As on today, the amount due is as noted hereinabove.The breach of trust that prevails in the case at hand is the amount being with the petitioners and its breach is with regard to non-payment to the complainant. It prima facie meets the ingredients of criminal breach of trust as the amount that is legally payable to the complainant is not paid and it is with the petitioners. If it was a case that the complainant has set the criminal law into motion for the purpose of recovery of money on an agreement between the petitioner and the complainant, it would have been an altogether a different circumstance. There is a twist in entrustment in the case at hand. The twist is with regard to the amount of the complainant being received by the petitioners and then not parting with it. Therefore, this aspect would undoubtedly require further investigation in the least. 15. Insofar as offence under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, it would on the face of it become untenable as there is no question of luring the complainant by the petitioners for entering into an agreement. Therefore, this aspect would undoubtedly require further investigation in the least. 15. Insofar as offence under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, it would on the face of it become untenable as there is no question of luring the complainant by the petitioners for entering into an agreement. Tenders were called for, complainant participates in the tender, sub-contract agreement is made and the contract is awarded in favour of the complainant. Section 420 of the IPC has its ingredients in Section 415 of the IPC. Section 415 of the IPC reads as follows: “ 415. Cheating .— Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. Illustrations (a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats. (b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. (c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. (d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats. (e) A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats. A cheats. (e) A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats. (f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats. (g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery, A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract. (h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats. (i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 415 of the IPC mandates that the accused should lure the victim for entering into a transaction with dishonest intention from the inception of the contract. There is no dishonest intention from the inception in the case at hand. It is an agreement between the parties. Therefore, it is not a case where an offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out even to its remotest sense. In that light, the crime so registered for offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioners. Therefore, the said registration of crime has to be obliterated. 16. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the matter being pending investigation, I deem it necessary to permit investigation only for the offence under Section 406 of the IPC.The petition deserves to succeed albeit, in part. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part. 16. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the matter being pending investigation, I deem it necessary to permit investigation only for the offence under Section 406 of the IPC.The petition deserves to succeed albeit, in part. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Crime registered in Crime No.131 of 2022 stands quashed insofar as it pertains to offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. (iii) Crime registered in Crime No.131 of 2022 stands sustained qua Section 406 of the IPC. (iv) The investigation in the case at hand shall continue only in respect of offences punishable under Sections 406 r/w 34 of the IPC. I.A.No.1/2024 is disposed, as a consequence.