The judgment established the principle that every breach of contract does not amount to the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust, emphasizing the need for dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction to establish the offences.

Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned Senior Advocate for complainant/opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioners have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of the order dated 10.05.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 1005 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna whereby finding a prima facie case to be made out under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) against the petitioners, they have been summoned to face trial.

3. The complainant (opposite party no. 2) filed Complaint Case No. 1005 of 2012 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City alleging inter alia that he is the proprietor of M/S Prashant Packaging Industries, which has its head office at Patna. The petitioner no. 2 being familiar from before approached him at his Head Office and after full satisfaction, he had agreed to purchase the packaging materials from him. He requested the complainant to supply goods on credit and assured him that he will make payment of the goods supplied to him within the financial year. The complainant, thereafter, supplied the goods to the petitioner no. 1 on credit under different vouchers. Later on, the petitioner no. 2 started irregular payment of the outstanding dues. It is further alleged that in the financial year 2009-10, a total sum of Rs.11,89,127.33/- was due against the petitioner no. 2 for which the complainant requested him to make payment several times and when he did not make payment, the complaint sent various legal notices to him. It is alleged that the petitioner no. 2 paid only Rs.3,93,023.00/- in the financial year 2010-11 and an amount of Rs.7,96,104.00/- is still lying due with the petitioners.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint petition filed by the complainant, the aforesaid complaint case was registered in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna, who in exercise of power conferred under Section 192 of the Cr.P.C. made over the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna City for inquiry and disposal.

5. After institution of the complaint, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and in course of enquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., three witnesses were examined in support of the complaint.

6. After conducting inquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 10.05.2013, summoned the petitioners in exercise of powers conferred under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

7. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had never entered into any business dealing with any Bihar based firm having its office at Patna. He has submitted that a party doing business under the name and style of Prashant Packaging having its office at Mumbai was doing packaging work for the present petitioners. The said company had its address at Mumbai and not at Patna. He has further submitted that the petitioners have paid the entire dues of the said Prashant Packaging and not a single paisa is due and payable to the said Mumbai based Prashant Packaging. As far as the payment to Patna based firm is concerned, it is stated that when there is no dealing with Patna based firm, there is no question of making any payment to them. He has contended that the entire dispute with respect to settlement of accounts arising during transaction of business with Prashant Packaging is purely a dispute of civil nature. In the entire complaint, there is nothing to suggest that the complainant has been induced or dishonestly deceived by the petitioners.

8. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant in the present case, it is stated that the peti