ORDER : In Crl.P.No.2390/2025, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: "Wherefore, the petitioner/accused No.4 most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.2/2025 of Byappanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, which is pending on the file of the Hon'ble 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru for the offences under sections 506, 504, 420 and 34 of I.P.C. and the consequent investigation as an abuse of process of law, in the ends of justice." 2. In Crl.P.No.2246/2025, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: "Wherefore, the petitioner/accused No.2 most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.2/2025 of Byappanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, which is pending on the file of the Hon'ble 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru for the offences under sections 506, 504, 420 and 34 of I.P.C. and the consequent investigation as an abuse of process of law, in the ends of justice." 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and perused the material on record. 4. Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant having been served with notice of the petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petitions. 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 in the impugned FIR registered as Cr.No.2/2025 dated 03.01.2025 filed by respondent No.2-defacto complainant against the petitioner/accused No.2 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 506 , 504, 34 and Section 420 of IPC . 6. In this context, it is relevant to state that the period for which the allegations are made by respondent No.2 are between 2015-2022 and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in CHANCHALPATI DAS Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER reported in (2023) 20 SCC 120 , the long unexplained inordinate delay in filing the complaint would vitiate the impugned proceedings. 7. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER reported in (2023) 20 SCC 120 , the long unexplained inordinate delay in filing the complaint would vitiate the impugned proceedings. 7. A perusal of the impugned material on record comprising of the complaint and FIR would also indicate that insofar as petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, there are no allegations in relation to offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and the only allegation is restricted to Section 420 of IPC and consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed on this ground also. 8. Insofar as the allegation made against the petitioners for alleged offences under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, apart from the fact that the bare perusal of the complaint allegations do no disclose the commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioners, under identical circumstances, the Apex Court has held that purely civil/commercial dispute between the parties which is predominantly, essentially and overwhelmingly of a civil character/nature cannot be given a criminal colour/texture and in the case of SATISHCHANDRA RATANLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2019 SC 1538 , it is held as under: "Leave granted. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment, dated 12-4-2018, passed by the High Court of Gujarat, in Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat [Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3329], wherein the High Court has dismissed the appellant's application seeking quashing of the order framing the charges dated 4-12-2013 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 388 of 2012. 2. It is pertinent to note the facts giving rise to the appeal in a detailed manner. Respondent 2 complainant is the Director of a moneylending company by the name of Dharshan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. The appellant, who is a retired bank employee, approached the complainant's Company in the month of January 2008 for a loan of Rs 27,00,000. Accordingly, Respondent 2 transferred the funds as a loan, which was to be repaid by the appellant within a year with interest. Thereafter, the appellant has not repaid the amount back to Respondent 2. Further, Respondent 2 alleged that when he approached the appellant, he was threatened by the appellant with dire consequences. Accordingly, Respondent 2 transferred the funds as a loan, which was to be repaid by the appellant within a year with interest. Thereafter, the appellant has not repaid the amount back to Respondent 2. Further, Respondent 2 alleged that when he approached the appellant, he was threatened by the appellant with dire consequences. Thereafter, Respondent 2 filed a complaint based on which the FIR bearing I/CR No. 22 of 2012 dated 25-1-2012, was filed before Kagdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad, against the present appellant under Sections 406, 409, 417, 420, 294(b) and 506 Part II IPC . On 23-2-2012 [Satishbhai Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 6353], the appellant was enlarged on bail by the High Court after being arrested on 29-1-2012. The appellant preferred an application under Section 482 CrPC for the quashing of the FIR bearing I/CR No. 22 of 2012. 3. Charge-sheet No. 28 of 2012 dated 1-3-2012, came to be filed against the appellant under Sections 406, 420 and 417 IPC . Pursuant to the same, the Magistrate issued summons. The appellant alleged that on 4-12-2013, he was given a copy of the said charge-sheet, and that the charges were framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the same day in a blank sheet without giving him an opportunity of being heard, as the appellant was unaccompanied by any counsel. The appellant alleges that the same was in violation of Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. In the light of the aforesaid developments, the appellant filed an application seeking amendment of the prayer in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4033 of 2012 wherein he sought for the inclusion of prayer seeking to quash and set aside Charge-sheet No. 28 of 2012 in FIR No. I/CR No. 22 of 2012 and the charges framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 4-12-2013 and all further proceedings carried out in Criminal Case No. 388 of 2012 pending before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. 5. It is pertinent to note that, simultaneously Respondent 2 had preferred a summary suit in Summary Civil Suit No. 928 of 2011 seeking the recovery of Rs 33,46,225 which was inclusive of the interest upon the principal amount. The same was admitted on 25-4-2011 and is still pending before the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad. 6. 5. It is pertinent to note that, simultaneously Respondent 2 had preferred a summary suit in Summary Civil Suit No. 928 of 2011 seeking the recovery of Rs 33,46,225 which was inclusive of the interest upon the principal amount. The same was admitted on 25-4-2011 and is still pending before the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad. 6. Vide order dated 12-4-2018 [Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3329], the High Court dismissed the quashing petition preferred by the appellant and directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months. The High Court further went on to observe that, prima facie an offence of cheating under Section 420 is made out but charge under Section 406 pertaining to criminal breach of trust is not applicable in the given factual scenario. However, the High Court did not remove the charges under Section 406 and observed that no case has been made out to get the charge quashed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the appellant has preferred the present special leave petition. 7. The counsel on behalf of the appellant has urged that a perusal of the complaint would reveal that the allegations as contained in the complaint are civil in nature and the requisite averments so as to make out a case of cheating are absent. Hence, prima facie does not disclose the commission of the alleged offence. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that after filing Summary Suit No. 928 of 2011 on 21- 4-2011, the complainant has filed the written complaint dated 5-1-2012 and has attempted to give the cloak of a criminal offence to the present case which is purely civil in nature, just to harass the appellant. Lastly, the criminal complaint filed by Respondent 2 is initiated after a lapse of more than three years from the date of offence i.e. 21-3-2008. 8. On the contrary, the counsel on behalf of Respondent 2, while supporting the judgment of the High Court has stated that the appellant had fraudulent intention from the beginning having induced Respondent 2 to lend the aforesaid amount of Rs 27 lakhs. Further, the appellant never had the intention to repay the loan even though multiple requests were made to him. Further, the appellant never had the intention to repay the loan even though multiple requests were made to him. The counsel pressed that whether the intention was to cheat from the inception or not is a question of fact and the same can only be decided by trial after appreciating the entire evidence. 9. Before we analyse this case, it is to be noted that the criminal application preferred by the accused before the High Court was against the order of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges, wherein it is the duty of the court to apply its judicial mind to the material placed before it and to come to a clear conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. An order for framing of charges is of serious concern to the accused as it affects his liberty substantially. Courts must therefore be cautious that their decision at this stage causes no irreparable harm to the accused. 10. Coming to the aspect of quashing of the charges, it is well settled that such exercise needs to be undertaken by the High Court in exceptional cases. It is also well settled that the framing of charges being initial stages in the trial process, the court therein cannot base the decision of quashing the charge on the basis of the quality or quantity of evidence rather the enquiry must be limited to a prima facie examination. (Refer to State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [ State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh , (1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 : 1977 Cri LJ 1606].) 11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC , we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment. 12. In this context, we may note that there is nothing either in the complaint or in any material before us, pointing to the fact that any property was entrusted to the appellant at all which he dishonestly converted for his own use so as to satisfy the ingredients of Section 405 punishable under Section 406 IPC . Hence the learned Magistrate committed a serious error in issuing process against the appellant for the said offence. Unfortunately, the High Court also failed to correct this manifest error. 13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC . In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [ Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar , (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786].) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred. 14. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred. 14. Moreover, this Court in a number of cases has usually cautioned against criminalising civil disputes, such as breach of contractual obligations (refer to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] ). The legislature intended to criminalise only those breaches which are accompanied by fraudulent, dishonest or deceptive inducements, which resulted in involuntary and inefficient transfers, under Section 415 IPC . 15. However, the High Court appears to have been carried away by the moral element involved in the breach of promise and made certain observations. Being a policy consideration, such suggestions need to be restricted. The aforementioned observations of the High Court were not only unnecessary for the adjudication of this matter, but the same could have been understood as casting some kind of aspersions on the accused. This clearly reflected a loaded dice situation against the appellant herein. 16. In our considered opinion, the High Court should have maintained judicial restraint and desisted from making such general observations at this stage of the criminal proceeding, as they may have had a bearing on the adjudication of the trial. Therefore, the observations made in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the impugned judgment stand expunged. 17. In view of the above, we are unable to uphold the impugned order passed by the High Court in Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat [Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3329] and the same is hereby set aside. The application filed by the appellant under Section 482 CrPC is allowed and the proceedings initiated based on the FIR instituted at the instance of Respondent 2 are hereby quashed. 18. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms." 9. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court in the case of Mr.V.Deepak Kumar Vs. State By Halasur Police Station and Another disposed of on 24 . 05.2023 and it reads as under: "Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in crime No.478/2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC . 2. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court in the case of Mr.V.Deepak Kumar Vs. State By Halasur Police Station and Another disposed of on 24 . 05.2023 and it reads as under: "Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in crime No.478/2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC . 2. Heard H.Muniswamy Gowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and SMt.K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: Respondent No.2 is the complainant and the petitioner is the accused. The two had a transaction of borrowal of certain amount by the accused from the hands of respondent No.2. Alleging that the petitioner has not repaid the amount, so borrowed from the hands of respondent No.2, respondent No.2 seeks to knock at the door of the Home Minister, for registration of the crime. The Home Minister directs reference of the matter to the jurisdictional police and it is thereafter crime in Cr.No.478/2017 comes to be registered for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC . It is registration of the crime that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. This Court having entertained the petition has stayed all further investigation in the aforesaid crime, against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the borrowal of certain amount from the hands of respondent No.2-complainant is true but, he had returned the entire amount. Prior to returning all the amount, a complaint was sought to be registered before the jurisdictional police is closed by submitting a non-cognizable report after recording the statement of the accused. It is later when respondent No.2 failed in attempts to harass the petitioner, approaches the Minister for registration of a crime. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would, however, contend that the investigation did not progress further in the light of the interim order granted by this Court and therefore, the Investigation Officer must be permitted to continue and conclude the investigation and take the issue to its logical conclusion. Learned HCGP seeks dismissal of the petition. 6. Respondent No.2 though served, has remained unrepresented before the Court. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Learned HCGP seeks dismissal of the petition. 6. Respondent No.2 though served, has remained unrepresented before the Court. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not being in dispute are not reiterated. The entire issue now triggers from a complaint registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioner. The complaint is not registered before the jurisdictional police under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. It goes before the then Home Minister. The complaint, insofar it’s germane, reads as follow: A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that it is filed seeking recovery of money from the hands of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had borrowed certain amount from the complainant and has returned the said amount as is narrated in the petition. Even otherwise, a criminal law being set into motion for recovery of money cannot be accepted. Finding that the complaint is only for the purpose of recovery of money, the ingredients of Section 420 as is alleged cannot be seen to be met. The ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 420 are found in Section 415 of the IPC . Section 415 of IPC reads as follow: “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”. A perusal at the complaint which forms foundation of registration of the crime does not indicate any ingredient of Section 415 being met in the case at hand. 9. Therefore, finding the proceedings instituted with an intention to recover the money, permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings pending in Crime No.487/2017 on the file of the X ACMM, Bengaluru stands quashed. iii. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings pending in Crime No.487/2017 on the file of the X ACMM, Bengaluru stands quashed. iii. The quashment of this proceedings will not come in the way of respondent No.2-complainant initiating any proceeding in law, if available. 10. In the instant case, as stated supra, the allegations disclose the existence of the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2, which is essentially, overwhelmingly and predominantly of a civil nature/character which is sought to be given a criminal texture/colour which is impermissible in law and consequently, the impugned proceedings, deserves to be quashed on this ground also. It is also relevant to state that the respondent No.2/de-facto complainant had also instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioners which is registered as PCR.No.72929/2024, which is yet another circumstance, that would vitiate the impugned proceedings. 11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER a) The petitions are hereby allowed. b) The FIR in Cr.No.2/2025 registered by Byappanhalli Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of the Hon'ble 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, qua petitioners (accused Nos.2 and 4) are hereby quashed.