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 order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Revision No. 169 of 2022 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar dismissed the criminal revision which was directed against the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar in connection with Complaint Case No. 207 of 2019, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner who is the complainant of Complaint Case No. 207 of 2019 filed the complaint alleging that the opposite party no.2 took a friendly loan of Rs.3,000/- to meet his expenses and promised to get it adjusted against wages but he did not work as a mason nor refunded the amount and threatened to implicate the petitioner in offences punishable under the panel provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. As from the record, it appeared to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar that no dishonest intention at the time of taking loan on the part of the opposite party no.2 could be made out so, neither the offence of criminal breach of trust nor the offence of cheating could be made out from the materials in the record and dismissed the complaint. Vide order dated 24.11.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 169 of 2022, the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar considered the settled principle of law that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course and after going through the materials in the record, formed an opinion that there is no sufficient evidence in the record to constitute any offence punishable in law hence, the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar not finding any illegality, ambiguity or absurdity either on the point of facts or on the point of law of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar, impugned before it, affirmed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar and dismissed the criminal revision. 5. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar failed to consider the case of the complainant and has not considered the statement of the inquiry witnesses who have supported the case of the complainant. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar ought to have found sufficient material for proceeding against the opposite party no.2 herein for having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and having not done so, the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar ought to have allowed the criminal revision. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. 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 at the most the allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses constitute a civil dispute but 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 this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. 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 nos. 11 and 13 of which reads as under:- “11. Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with Section 406 IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. It falls from the record that Respondent 2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before lending the loan. Further it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment. 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. 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. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the opposite party no.2 is that opposite party no.2 took Rs.3,000/- as loan and neither returned the same nor did any work as mason to defray the said loan amount. 9. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the opposite party no.2 is that opposite party no.2 took Rs.3,000/- as loan and neither returned the same nor did any work as mason to defray the said loan amount. 9. In view of the settled principle of law, in the absence of any allegation against the opposite party no.2 of playing deception since the very inception of the transaction between the parties which is sine qua non to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 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. 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) this Court is of the considered view that both the courts below have not committed any illegality in finding that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. Similarly, in the absence of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property, both the courts below have not committed any illegality either in coming to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.