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 528 of the BNSS , 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil in connection with C.C. Case No. 435 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 323, 504, 506, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that petitioners purchased the property sold to them by co-accused namely Bibi Rupu without partition of the property; in which share is claimed by the complainant. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners of being entrusted with any property and in the absence of the same, the question of dishonest misappropriation of the property does not arise and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners of deceiving anybody or inducing any person deceived to part with any property hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to anybody and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners of intentionally insulting anybody or committing criminal intimidation and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners of intentionally insulting anybody or committing criminal intimidation and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned A.C.J.M., Chandil is made out against the petitioner, either in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons or in criminal conspiracy with them therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which prima facie case is found by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. 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 Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 para-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. 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) that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, dishonest misappropriation is sine qua non. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of being entrusted with any property and in the absence of the same, question of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property does not arise and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 , paragraph No.6 of which reads as under:- “6. Xxxxxxxx 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. Xxxxxxxx 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) that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of deceiving anybody or inducing any person deceived to part with any property and in the absence of the same even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence is causing hurt. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to anybody and in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence is that the victim must be intentionally insulted thereby giving provocation to commit breach of peace or commit any offence. 13. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence is that the victim must be intentionally insulted thereby giving provocation to commit breach of peace or commit any offence. 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of internationally insulting anybody and in the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same provided punishment for criminal intimidation. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of committing criminal intimidation to anybody or giving any threatening to anyone. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out even with the aid of Section 120B or Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found to be made out by the learned Magistrate, is in fact being made out against the petitioners, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil in connection with C.C. Case No. 435 of 2019 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 18. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil in connection with C.C. Case No. 435 of 2019 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 19. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.