JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C1 Case No.2109 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the deceased husband of the petitioner no.2 namely Anil Kumar Akela and the petitioner no.2 were the directors of the petitioner no.1. The deceased husband of the petitioner no.2-Anil Kumar Akela entered into a development agreement with the two grandfathers of the complainant and paid Rs.4 lakhs as advance at the time of agreement. The two grandfathers of the complainant executed power of attorney in favor of the Anil Kumar Akela in 2008 and on the basis of power of attorney Anil Kumar Akela transferred 1 Bigha of land in favor of the petitioner no.1 but did not pay the consideration money of the said sale deed to the executors of the power of attorney in his favour. The grandfathers and the father of the complainant have died before the filing of the complaint. Anil Kumar Akela after the death of two grandfathers of the complainant made a rectification of the power of attorney in favor of the petitioner no.2. Anil Kumar Akela also entered into a development agreement in respect of 1 Bigha of land; which was in possession of the Anil Kumar Akela, with the father of the complainant. An MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) was prepared for 3 Bighas of land for Rs.2,40,000,00/- and advance of Rs.1 crore was paid but the remaining amount was not paid. Later on, the complainant came to know that the rest land has been transferred in the name of the petitioner no.1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegation against the petitioners is false and the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. Later on, the complainant came to know that the rest land has been transferred in the name of the petitioner no.1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegation against the petitioners is false and the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against either of the petitioners of committing any offence and all the allegations are against Anil Kumar Akela who has died during the pendency of this Cr.M.P. It is next submitted that even though the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ambuj Hotel and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another in Cr.M.P. No.614 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 and submits 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 & 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 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 reiterated the settled principle of law that 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, the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. 6. It is next submitted 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 & 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) Wherein it was held 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 will not amount to cheating. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sandeep Bhargava vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another with allied cases in Cr.M.P. No.3245 of 2021 dated 11.03.2024 and submits that therein this Court 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. 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 it has categorically been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 persons but it must also be shown that the accused person dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Yogesh Beriwal vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another in Cr.M.P. No.4402 of 2022 dated 14.08.2023 and submits that in that case, this Court 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. 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 has reiterated the settled principle of law that a mere retention of the property would not amount to dishonest misappropriation of the property, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 9. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the materials available in the record is sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., 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 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 (supra). 11. 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 (supra). 11. Now, coming to the facts of the case, so far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. In fact, there is no allegation against the petitioners of having any transaction with the complainant. 12. Under such circumstances, 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 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that in order to constitute the said offence, the essential ingredient is that there has to be dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property by the accused persons. 14. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of any entrustment against either of the petitioners nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property. Under such circumstances, 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 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 15. In view of the discussions made above as neither the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C1 Case No.2109 of 2016, be quashed and set aside. 16. 16. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C1 Case No.2109 of 2016, is quashed and set aside. 17. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. 18. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted, if any, is vacated.