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 the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.06.2022 whereby fresh N.B.W. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner without recalling or modifying the earlier order dated 10.12.2019 whereby fresh cognizance of the offence has been taken and without issuing any summons, the learned court below straight way was pleased to direct issuance of N.B.W. against the petitioner and additionally, the petitioner prays for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar in connection with Sarwan P.S. Case No. 109 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 751 of 2009 of the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner claiming himself to be the authorised agent of one M/s Kiran Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Dhanbad has cheated and committed criminal breach of trust by taking part of the sanctioned amount for installation of solar pumping system at two places; which he was supposed to do within 45 days from receipt of the amount; instead of installing the solar pumping system, has misappropriated the same. On the basis of the written report submitted by the complainant - Block Development Officer, Sarwan, police registered Sarwan P.S. Case No. 109 of 2009 and took up investigation of the case and after investigation of the case, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner has withheld the charge sheet from this Court by not filing the charge sheet. Basing upon the charge sheet submitted by the police, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the summoning order vide order dated 03.06.2017. As the petitioner did not appear in response to the summons issued, bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on 19.07.2017. 4. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the similar prayer. As the petitioner did not appear in response to the summons issued, bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on 19.07.2017. 4. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the similar prayer. Earlier, the petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No. 3742 of 2018 for quashing the entire criminal proceedings against the order dated 03.06.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, consequent upon the charge sheet as a closure report was submitted by the police, mentioning therein that though the allegations made against the petitioner were found to be true but the petitioner could not be traced out even after conducting raids at three places in the state of Jharkhand and Bihar, albeit without mentioning the reasons for taking cognizance by a speaking order. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.07.2019 considered that since the order taking cognizance was passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind, accordingly, the order dated 03.06.2017 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted to the court below to pass a reasoned and speaking order. The Deputy Commissioner has released 70 per cent of the total cost of Rs.19,91,000/- i.e. Rs.13,93,700/- and as per the terms of the agreement, the company needed to complete the whole installation in 45 days but they did not do it. 5. It is evident from the impugned order; that on perusal of the case diary, it transpired to the learned trial court that the Investigating Officer has examined altogether nine (9) witnesses. Six (6) witnesses whose statements appear in para-9, 12, 13, 18, 34 and 46 have supported the case of prosecution and stated about the truthfulness of the allegation against the petitioner of having committed the cheating and dishonest misappropriation of Government money. The learned Judicial Magistrate also found that police made extensive search operation for the petitioner in different places of Dhanbad, Ranchi, Muzaffarpur and examined witnesses for ascertaining the whereabouts of the petitioner but the petitioner could not be traced out. The learned Judicial Magistrate also found that police made extensive search operation for the petitioner in different places of Dhanbad, Ranchi, Muzaffarpur and examined witnesses for ascertaining the whereabouts of the petitioner but the petitioner could not be traced out. Hence, on 03.11.2014, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet in shape of the closure report stating therein that the incident seems to be true but the investigation is being closed as the accused could not be found out, even after thorough search operation taken in the State of Jharkhand and Bihar. From the materials available in the record, the learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner and from the materials available in the record, it was satisfied that in spite of extensive search operation conducted by the police to find out the petitioner, he could not be found out as he is absconding and as he did not surrender even after rejection of the anticipatory bail application by the High Court on 11.09.2018, hence, directed the Office Clerk to issue the non-bailable warrant of arrest. In the meanwhile, the case was transferred to the court of Ms. B. Mittal - the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class from the court of R. Agarwal - the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class. After receipt of the record in the court of Ms. B. Mittal - the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class on 21.06.2022, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class directed for issuance of a fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies 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 No.6 of which reads as under:- “6. xxxxx 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. xxxxx 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) and submits that therein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused person must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another, (2000) 4 SCC 168 and submits that therein, 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 offence is said to have committed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sandeep Bhargava Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3245 of 2021 and allied case dated 11th March, 2024 and submits that therein, this Court in the facts of that case where the informant paid for supply of articles out of which some of the articles were supplied but which were not found fit for use and did not supply other articles, this Court in the facts of that case, considering the admitted the case of the complainant himself that the accused person of that case has supplied substantial portion of the purchase order, quashed the entire criminal proceedings. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Binod Choudhary & Others Vs. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further 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, in the facts of that case when the accused persons of that case sold two pieces of land to the informant on behalf of housing society and consequent upon such sale of the land, the correction slip in respect of the land was made in the revenue records in the name of the purchaser but the informant of that case claimed that the petitioner has sold the land other than the land in respect of which the sale deed has been executed. This Court considering the undisputed fact of that case that the informant has been put in possession of the land sold and correction slip of the area of the land which has been purchased by the informant, has been given to the informant, quashed the entire criminal proceeding. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The petitioner purchased and supplied solar panels and other equipments worth Rs.16,00,000/- which was kept in safe custody of the DDC premises. The petitioner is still ready to install the equipments at the proposed site. The promised contractual amount was not paid to the petitioner. The Certificate Case No. 194 of 2013-14 has been instituted against the petitioner and a notice pertaining to the said case has been served upon the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner was absconding from the date of registration of the FIR i.e. 25.08.2009 to till today. He has never appeared before the trial court even though his anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court. The petitioner never cooperated with the investigation of the case. During the investigation of the case, police found the allegation against the petitioners to be true. He has never appeared before the trial court even though his anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court. The petitioner never cooperated with the investigation of the case. During the investigation of the case, police found the allegation against the petitioners to be true. The petitioner had deliberately withheld the police report submitted before the trial court from this Court knowing pretty well that there is sufficient material against him, which was collected during the investigation of the case and which goes to show that the petitioner has played deception since the very inception by deceiving the informant and dishonestly and fraudulently inducing him to pay huge amount of Government money promising to install the solar pumping system but he has dishonestly misappropriated the Government money. It is next submitted that it is a settled principle of law that only because a civil dispute arises out of a transaction from which a criminal offence also arises, the option for a civil dispute is not a ground for quashing the entire criminal proceedings. Now since the Government money has been misappropriated by the petitioner, so the Certificate Case has been instituted against the petitioner and though the petitioner admits his knowledge about the institution of the Certificate Case but he has not deposited any money in the Certificate Case rather he is absconding but for merely filing of a Certificate Case, as otherwise the transaction also gives rise to a criminal offence, there is no justification for quashing the entire criminal proceedings; more so when all these grounds which are being agitated before this Court were earlier agitated before the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court but the same did not find favour with the Co-ordinate Bench; as in the order dated 06.07.2019 in Cr.M.P. No. 3782 of 2018, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not quash the entire criminal proceedings rather as the order of the cognizance was passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind, hence, the matter was remitted to the court below to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Learned Public Prosecutor next submits that it is not even the case of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar in G.R. Case No. 751 of 2009 is not a reasoned or speaking order. Learned Public Prosecutor next submits that it is not even the case of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar in G.R. Case No. 751 of 2009 is not a reasoned or speaking order. It is further submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner absconded from 2009 to till date and as is reflected in the order dated 10.12.2019 that the petitioner was absconding and police after finding the allegations against the petitioner to be true, submitted a closure report because they could not apprehend the petitioner in spite of conducting raids in the various places at Ranchi, Dhanbad, Muzaffarpur in which localities the petitioner was expected to have hidden himself. So, when there were sufficient materials available in the record for the learned Judicial Magistrate to be satisfied that the petitioner is absconding, there was no justification for issuing summons when his whereabouts was not known to the court, so, straightway, the learned Judicial Magistrate recording the reasons why it is straightway issuing the non-bailable warrant, has ordered for issuing the non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner; so, there is absolutely no illegality in the order dated 10.12.2019 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate straightway issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Similarly, after the transfer of the case to the court of Ms. B. Mittal – Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar, the learned Judicial Magistrate has only ordered for issuance of a fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest, which was earlier issued in terms of the order dated 10.12.2019, so, there is no illegality in that order either. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, 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 direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of having played deception since the very inception by deceiving the Government Officers and dishonestly and fraudulently inducing them to part with substantial amount of Government money by making them believe that he will install the solar pumping systems. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has received the Government money and he has not installed the solar pumping system. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has received the Government money and he has not installed the solar pumping system. Under such circumstances, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. He has suppressed the police report which was submitted against him from this Court, without any plausible reason. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has been absconding since the date of the registration of the FIR on 25.08.2009; even though his anticipatory bail application has been rejected by this Court. All these grounds which are agitated by the petitioner in this petition, were earlier agitated before the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 3742 of 2018 but the same did not find favour with the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 13. The ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra) is not of any help to the petitioner because here is the case, there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of playing deception since the very inception and the witnesses have stated so, as has been mentioned in the impugned order by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 14. The ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra) is also not of any help to the petitioner, because there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of showing fraudulent or dishonest intention right at the beginning of the transaction, when the offence was committed. 15. The facts of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sandeep Bhargava Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra) is entirely different from the facts of this case as unlike that case, the petitioner has not supplied the substantial portion of the materials for which he has received money. True it is that the petitioner claims that he has supplied certain materials but the materials collected during the investigation of the case did not support such contention of the petitioner. It may at best be a defence of the petitioner which the petitioner can take during the full-dress trial of the case. 16. True it is that the petitioner claims that he has supplied certain materials but the materials collected during the investigation of the case did not support such contention of the petitioner. It may at best be a defence of the petitioner which the petitioner can take during the full-dress trial of the case. 16. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priti Saraf & Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another, (2021) 16 SCC 142 as well as in the case of Nagpur Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. P. Radhakrishna @ Rajan & Others, 1997 SCC (Cri) 1073, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that only because a civil dispute arises out of a transaction from which, a criminal offence also arises, the option for a civil dispute is not a ground for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. Now in this case, as is admitted by the petitioner that a Certificate Case has also been instituted against the petitioner for recovery of the cheated and misappropriated amount by him but the petitioner has not paid any money even in that Certificate Case. There is no material available in the record to suggest that the petitioner has appeared before the Certificate Officer in that case. The conduct of the petitioner in absconding continuously also indicates his culpability. 17. In view of such conduct of the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality in the order dated 10.12.2019 of unnecessarily issuing the summons when the whereabouts of the petitioner was undisputedly not known and straightway directing for issuance of the non-bailable warrant of arrest. Similarly, the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate to whom the case was subsequently transferred in G.R. Case No. 751 of 2009 has also not committed any illegality in passing the order for issuance of fresh non- bailable warrant of arrest because that can at best be the continuation of the non-bailable warrant of arrest which was issued in terms of the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar. 18. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this there is no justification to accede to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.