JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY,  J. By the Court:- Heard the parties. Though notice has validly been served upon the opp. Party no. 2 but no one turns up on behalf of the opp. Party no. 2 in spite of repeated calls. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case no. 1495 of 2017 arising out of Dhurwa P.S. case no. 93 of 2015, G.R. case no. 2221 of 2015 including the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by learned JMFC, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have committed the offence of forgery and have forcibly occupied the school by forging documents and have embezzled an amount of Rs. 1.50 to 2.00 crores; in violation of the prescribed yardsticks of Arya Samaj. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the Inquiry Witnesses, learned Magistrate has found the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false. The complaint filed by Prem Vardhan Prasad was set up by the present opp. Party no. 2 and in Complaint Case no. 2008 of 2019 in which, the opp. Party no. 2 was also Inquiry Witness, has been quashed by this Court vide the judgment dated 18.08.2025 in CrMP No. 285 of 2020 reported in 2025:JHHC:24069. 5. It is next submitted that on the basis of the complaint of the District Education Officer –cum- Receiver of the School, Dhurwa P.S. case no. 08 of 2004 was registered and police submitted chargesheet against the opp. Party no.2 –complainant of this case. 6. It is next submitted that the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Jharkhand had dissolved the previous committee running the Arya Samaj and the school and has reconstituted the same. 08 of 2004 was registered and police submitted chargesheet against the opp. Party no.2 –complainant of this case. 6. It is next submitted that the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Jharkhand had dissolved the previous committee running the Arya Samaj and the school and has reconstituted the same. It is next submitted that under the new committee, the petitioner no.3 is the Secretary of the committee and the Sub-Divisional Officer has handed over the management of the school to the newly constituted committee. It is next submitted that, since, the Arya Samaj, Dhurwa was earlier registered with the erstwhile State of Bihar, it was decided to register the Arya Samaj, Dhurwa with the State of Jharkhand and the same has been registered. It is next submitted that the said registration was also necessitated because of the Right to Education Act. It is next submitted that though the opp. Party no. 2- complainant, has superannuated in the year 2008, but he has not vacated his quarter situated in the school campus. It is next submitted that opp. Party no. 2 and others and his associates threatened the Principal of DAV Public School, Dhurwa and in this connection Dhurwa P.S. Case No.131 of 2011 has been registered. It is next submitted that the President of the Committee has also lodged FIR vide Dhurwa P.S. Case No.144 of 2011 against opp. Party no. 2 and others and the police, after investigation of the case, submitted the chargesheet, against the opp. Party no. 2 –complainant. It is next submitted that though, the rival faction of Arya Samaj submitted an application to the Inspector General of Registration, Ranchi for deregistering the Arya Samaj, Dhurwa Society, but no adverse order was passed. At the behest of the complainant- opp. Party no. 2, Prem Vardhan Prasad filed W.P(C). Case No.2633 of 2012 challenging the registration and constitution of the Managing Committee, but the same was dismissed. It is next submitted that one of the associate of the complainant – opp. Party no. At the behest of the complainant- opp. Party no. 2, Prem Vardhan Prasad filed W.P(C). Case No.2633 of 2012 challenging the registration and constitution of the Managing Committee, but the same was dismissed. It is next submitted that one of the associate of the complainant – opp. Party no. 2 namely Mithilesh Kumar Verma, claiming himself to be the son of the founder of the Arya Samaj, Dhurwa lodged C.P. Case No.1761 of 2012 against the members of the Managing Committee but the same was quashed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court by the common judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1109 of 2013 in the case of Dhananjay Kumar Sinha & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another with allied cases. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the petitioners have been appointed after due process of election. It is next submitted that even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still none the offence punishable under Sections 417, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2023) 20 SCC 209 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that case has observed that in frivolous and vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners then relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rikhab Birani and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has considered that the prevalent impression that civil remedies, being time-consuming, do not adequately protect the interests of creditors or lenders, should be discouraged and rejected as criminal procedure cannot be used to apply pressure. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Gaba & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 423 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the summoning order is to be passed when the complainant discloses the offence, and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 , paragraph- 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. 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) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that unless there is a deception played by petitioners since the beginning of the transaction, the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the India Penal Code is not made out. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Lakhotia and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another dated 26.04.2024 passed CrMP No. 3095 of 2021 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 , paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of which reads as under :- “24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] . 25. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] . 25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “… The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.” (emphasis supplied) A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has considered the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC and submits that in the absence of the essential ingredients of the said offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 of the IPC, neither the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC is made out and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajib Kumar Singh and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another dated 06.05.2024 passed CrMP No. 1793 of 2021. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 13. Learned Addl. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 13. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which, prima facie was found out by learned JMFC, Ranchi, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 14. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law 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 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph-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) Thus, it is crystal clear that playing deception since the beginning of the transaction is a sine qua non to constitute the offence of cheating. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of deceiving anybody nor there is any allegation of petitioners of inducing anybody, so deceived, to part with any property. For the berries no allegation of playing any deception since the beginning of the transaction. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of deceiving anybody nor there is any allegation of petitioners of inducing anybody, so deceived, to part with any property. For the berries no allegation of playing any deception since the beginning of the transaction. In the absence of these essential ingredients to constitute the offence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of having committed any intentional insult to the informant or anyone else of such a degree that should provoke the informant or anybody else to break public peace or commit any other offence and in the absence of that, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is not made out. 17. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner of threatening the complainant to kill the complainant or anyone else with the intention of causing alarm to the complainant or to make the complainant to do any act, which he is not legally entitled to do, or to restrain him from doing any act, which he is entitled to do, and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Sections 506 of IPC is not made out. 18. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in respect of which, prima facie case was found out by learned Magistrate, is made out, hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case no. 1495 of 2017 arising out of Dhurwa P.S. case no. 93 of 2015, G.R. case no. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case no. 1495 of 2017 arising out of Dhurwa P.S. case no. 93 of 2015, G.R. case no. 2221 of 2015 including the order dated 25.06.2018 be quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 19. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case no. 1495 of 2017 arising out of Dhurwa P.S. case no. 93 of 2015, G.R. case no. 2221 of 2015 including the order dated 25.06.2018, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 20. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.