JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. 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. 3. 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 arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No.175 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2879 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the investigation of the case is still going on for over 9 years and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. 5. The allegation against the petitioners is that petitioners are the directors of M/s Toplink Toyota, Dhanbad and the informant purchased Toyota Etios vehicle from the showroom of the said M/s Toplink Toyota, Dhanbad. At the time of purchase, the representatives of the petitioners impressed upon the informant to get the said vehicle insured, assuring that upon said insurance being done, in case of any damage to the vehicle, the insurance company will bear the expenses for repairing of the vehicle because of the damages sustained in any accident, from bumper to bumper. The vehicle of the informant met with an accident by dashing a buffalo, the insurance company only paid Rs.24,704/- and the representative of the petitioners deducted Rs.19,657/- from the debit card of the informant. 6. The informant filed Complaint Case No.1327 of 2017 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.; police registered Govindpur P.S. Case No. 175 of 2017 and took up investigation of the case which is still going on. 7. 6. The informant filed Complaint Case No.1327 of 2017 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.; police registered Govindpur P.S. Case No. 175 of 2017 and took up investigation of the case which is still going on. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Choudhary & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2026:JHHC:221 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karanataka & Others reported in (2022) 14 SCC 572 wherein in paragraph-44, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the innumerable instances where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute and such an exercise in nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety. 8. 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must have played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and if the intention to cheat develops later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that the allegation against the petitioners is false and there is no allegation against the petitioners of making any false document either themselves or in criminal conspiracy with anyone else and in the absence of any allegation of forgery against the petitioners, neither the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submit that the allegation is against the representatives of the petitioners, so the petitioners in the absence of provision of any vicarious liability under the Indian Penal Code are not responsible for the acts, commission or omission if any committed by any of the representatives. It is next submitted that the petitioners denied having engaged any representative for the purpose of cheating. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties rather it is the admitted case of the complainant/informant that insurance company has paid substantial amount of the expenses incurred by the informant in the repairing of the vehicle and in the absence of any allegation of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Therefore, it is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 11. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that the allegations against the petitioners are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which FIR has been registered, hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding ought not be quashed at this nascent stage. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. 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 there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. 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 there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. Admittedly, the valid insurance policy was issued to the informant and the only allegation is that the representatives of the petitioners let the informant believe that the entire expenses incurred in any damage caused by accident of vehicle shall be reimbursed by the insurance company, but the insurance company paid part of the amount. Thus, in the absence of any allegation of playing deception since the very inception even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 467 & 468 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegations against the petitioners of making any false document and in the absence of the same, the offence of forgery is not made out and in the absence of forgery, neither the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners, even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code; even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety. 14. 14. As none of the offences in respect of which the FIR has been registered is made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety coupled with the fact that though the investigation is going on for about 7 years yet charge sheet has not yet been submitted and the investigation has not yet been concluded, 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 arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No.175 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2879 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No.175 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2879 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 16. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.