JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the F.I.R. including the entire criminal proceedings of Chas P.S. Case No.192 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316 (2) and 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner representing Sri Krishna Sales, approached the informant for the business of electronics goods. The business between the petitioner and the informant continued from 19.02.2022 to 13.06.2023 but thereafter the petitioner slowed down the payments and on 28.08.2023, a sum of Rs.4,25,336/- was due and payable by the petitioner to the informant but the same was not paid. On the basis of the written-report of the informant, police registered Chas P.S. Case No.192 of 2024 and took up the investigation of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and police has not submitted charge-sheet in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Satyabhama Dubey @ Satyabhama Devi & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2024 Supreme (jhk) 171 and submits that in that case this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy Vs. Ramesh Ranganathan & Another reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1061 , para -21 to 24 of which read as under:- “ 21 . The offence of criminal breach of trust contains two ingredients: (i) entrusting any person with property, or with any dominion over property; and (ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property to the detriment of the person who entrusted it. 22 . In Anwar Chand Sab Nanadikar v. State of Karnataka6 a two-judge bench restated the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust in the following words: “7. 22 . In Anwar Chand Sab Nanadikar v. State of Karnataka6 a two-judge bench restated the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust in the following words: “7. The basic requirement to bring home the accusations under Section 405 are the requirements to prove conjointly (1) entrustment, and (2) whether the accused was actuated by the dishonest intention or not misappropriated it or converted it to his own use to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it. As the question of intention is not a matter of direct proof, certain broad tests are envisaged which would generally afford useful guidance in deciding whether in a particular case the accused had mens rea for the crime.” 23 . In Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal another two- judge bench held that entrustment of property is pivotal to constitute an offence under section 405 of the IPC. The relevant extract reads as follows: “28. “Entrustment” of property under Section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this. The words used are, “in any manner entrusted with property”. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of “trust”. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code.” 24 . None of the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust have been demonstrated on the allegations in the complaint as they stand. The first respondent alleges that the Appellant caused breach of trust by issuing grossly irregular bills, which adversely affected his professional fees. However, an alleged breach of the contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment. No element of entrustment has been prima facie established based on the facts and circumstances of the present matter. However, an alleged breach of the contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment. No element of entrustment has been prima facie established based on the facts and circumstances of the present matter. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are ex facie not made out on the basis of the complaint as it stands.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that in the absence of any allegations that the accused persons were actuated by the dishonest intention or have misappropriated the money entrusted to them or converted it to their own use to the detriment of the person who entrusted it, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out which corresponds to Section 316 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in that case this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur Vs. Jagnar Singh , reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 , para -10 of which reads as under:- “ 10 . The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non- refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [ (2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] )” (Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute, resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused persons by non- refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute the offence of cheating. 6. 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 Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Another reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373 para-8 of which reads as under:- “ 8 .The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus: “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’.” Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of the aforementioned provision nor any statement in that behalf has been made.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that when the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute, non-payment or under-payment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. 7. It is lastly submitted as that there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the very inception, hence, the offence punishable under Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 8. Learned Spl. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 8. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Sections 316 (2) and 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. 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 so far as the offence punishable under Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which corresponds to Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and 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) 10. 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) 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties rather it is the admitted case of the petitioner that the business transaction between the parties was continuing for a period of more than one year and the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has made under payment of the articles he has purchased from the informant. In view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Another (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 316 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is not made out against the petitioner. 11. In the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner played deception since the very inception, the offence punishable under Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is not made out against the petitioner. 12. In view of the discussions made above as neither of the offence in respect of which the F.I.R. of the case has been lodged, is made out against the petitioner even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, it is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings of Chas P.S. Case No.192 of 2024 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Chas P.S. Case No.192 of 2024 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 14. 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Chas P.S. Case No.192 of 2024 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.