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 the FIR of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 596 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of C.J.M., Deoghar. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the informant negotiated for purchase of a land with Amresh Kumar Singh and Amresh Kumar Singh facilitated the informant having conversation with the petitioner over phone. The further allegation is that though Amresh Kumar Singh has taken in total Rs. 26,00,000/- as advance for selling the land but he is not selling the land to the informant nor returning the money in terms of the agreement dated 25.08.2021. 5. 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 Ankur Gupta vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2023 that therein, in the facts of that case when the accused person is not a party to the transaction between the complainant and the co-accused person, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that there is no reason as to why he should face the criminal trial and that too for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case also the admitted case of the informant is that the petitioner is not a party to the agreement to sell nor there is any allegation of payment of any money to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2024:JHHC:34087 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar , (2000) 4 SCC 168 , Para-15 of which reads as under:- “15. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2024:JHHC:34087 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar , (2000) 4 SCC 168 , Para-15 of which reads as under:- “15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 Dalip Kaur and Others v. Jagnar Singh and Another , (2009) 14 SCC 696 wherein, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the accused person by non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. 8. 8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case this Court next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 336 paragraph no. 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 has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 and if the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same will not amount to cheating. 9. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still 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, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 10. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that if the entire allegations made in the FIR are considered to be true in its entirety, then the petitioner is squarely liable for being prosecuted for having committed both the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code hence, quashing of the criminal proceeding at this nascent stage will prejudice the investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. It is, therefore, submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is not the party to the agreement to sell. The undisputed fact also remains that the petitioner never came face to face with the informant. The only allegation against the petitioner is that there was some telephonic conversation between the informant and the petitioner at the behest of the co-accused-Amresh Kumar Singh and Amresh Kumar Singh is no way related to the petitioner. 12. Under such circumstances, in view of the settled principle of law as recorded in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment, particularly in the case of Ankur Gupta vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner is not the party to the agreement to sell or any transaction between the complainant and the co-accused person, there is no rhyme or reason as to why the petitioner should face the criminal prosecution hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the FIR of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 596 of 2023 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the FIR of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 596 of 2023 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 14. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.