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 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 1223 of 2018, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the petitioner having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is at the stage of evidence before charge and the next date fixed is 13.03.2026. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the younger brother of the complainant took Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant in the year 2007 promising to return the money within some days or else he will give his land to the complainant. There was settlement between two brothers. The petitioner also misbehaved, abused and did marpeet (beating) with the complainant and did not return the money. 5. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi found prima facie case for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 196 that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, the dispute essentially is of a civil nature of non- refunding of friendly loan hence, the same does not constitute any offence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1151 and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of that case, held that where there was a delay of nearly eight years, without any plausible reason, the fact of the case raises a suspicion about the bona fides of the complainant. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also relied upon the its judgment in the case of Vishal Noble Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680 , wherein, it was observed that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Therefore, the Courts have to be very vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, there is an inordinate delay of 11 years in filing this complaint as admittedly, the loan was taken in the year 2007 and the complaint case was filed in the year 2018. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation of causing any bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant and in the absence of that the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that giving of friendly loan by one brother to another does not amount to entrustment and in the absence of that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. The learned Addl. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute both the offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chandra Ratan Lal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 , paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under:- “13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” that mere inability of the accused to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence and in paragraph no.11 thereof, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust as contained in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code without there being a clear case of entrustment. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, so far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, admittedly, the loan was taken by the petitioner from the complainant in the year 2007. There is an inordinate delay of 11 years in filing the complaint. The delay has not been suitably explained. There is no document in respect of the loan allegedly taken by the petitioner. There is no allegation against the petitioner of having played deception since the very inception. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety still the same do not inspire confidence to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation of any bodily pain, disease or infirmity having been caused to the complainant. There is no allegation as to on which day, place or at what time the occurrence took place in between these 11 years. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation of any bodily pain, disease or infirmity having been caused to the complainant. There is no allegation as to on which day, place or at what time the occurrence took place in between these 11 years. Under, such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 12. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 1223 of 2018 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 1223 of 2018 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 14. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.