JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 3569 of 2022 whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. 3. 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. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are owners of certain land and they have entered into a development agreement with the company of the complainant. As per the terms of the development agreement, a general power of attorney was executed. The complainant invested crores of rupees in the said project but in violation of the terms and condition of the development agreement, the petitioners have revoked the power of attorney. 5. On the basis of the complaint petition, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Brajesh Chand Vidhyarthi @ Brajesh Chandra Vidyaarthi & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025:JHHC:24069 that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 , paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under:- “13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. 13 of which reads as under:- “13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which FIR was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that unless there is a deception played by the accused persons since the beginning of the transaction, the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the India Penal Code is not made out. 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case this Court also relied upon the judgment of 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. 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case this Court also relied upon the judgment of 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) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the sine qua non to constitute the offence of cheating, is playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 8. It is further submitted that in that case this Court further relied upon the judgment of 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) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the accused person. It must also be shown that the accused person dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 , paragraph nos. 11 of which reads as under:- “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. 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. (Emphasis supplied) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that 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 of the Indian Penal Code for which punishment has been provided in Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code without there being a clear case of entrustment. 10. 10. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction and there is absolutely no allegation of any entrustment to the petitioners. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any entrustment, the question of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property does not arise and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the general power of attorney has been revoked because of the failure on the part of the complainant to comply with the terms and condition of the development agreement and at best the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and a cloak of criminal case has been given to it for wreaking vengeance and harassing the petitioners.Hence it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 11. Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and in the absence of any deception being played by the petitioners since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property is a sine-qua-non. 14. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property is a sine-qua-non. 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of any entrustment made to any of the petitioners and in the absence of any entrustment, the question of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property does not arise.Therefore, in the absence of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property, certainly, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety. 15. In view of the discussions made above, as neither the offence punishable under Section 420 nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 3569 of 2022 be quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 3569 of 2022 is quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 17. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.