The intention to cheat is an essential ingredient for the offence under Section 420 IPC, and 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.

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.

The hearing stems from twin applications under section 482 Cr.PC being registered as CRR No. 305 of 2003 and CRR No.677 of 2003 filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the proceeding as well as charge-sheet dated 31.03.2002 under sections 406/420/506 (II)/120B/34 IPC filed in G.R. Case No. 342/2001 arising out of Arambagh P.S. Case No. 136/01 dated 09.10.2001, pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Arambagh.

2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that the de facto complainant Matiar Rahaman lodged a complaint under sections 406/420/504/506 (II)/120B/34 IPC, being forwarded under section 156(3) Cr. PC to Arambagh P.S., inter alia alleging that the accused persons, fifteen in number, purchased rice, worth of large amount, from him on credit for the purpose of their business at different times on assuring that they would repay the price. Despite repeated requests when they did not pay the price the matter was reported to the Rice Dealer Association of Arambagh which in turn referred the matter to Rice Dealer Association of Tegharia. In the meeting called by the Rice Dealer Association of Tegharia, the accused persons pleaded guilty and promised to pay up the dues within 2/3 months. On 05.10.2001 when the complainant met the accused persons at Arambagh and demanded payment of the due sum, they became aggressive, threatened him with dire consequences if he further demanded payment of dues and expressed that they would not pay the amount. On the basis of said complaint, Arambagh P.S. Case No. 136/01 dated 09.10.2001 under sections 406/420/504/506 (II)/120B/34 IPC was started and after completion of investigation charge-sheet under the said provisions was submitted.

3. It has been contended that the dispute is purely of civil nature and initiation of the criminal proceeding is a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

4. Being aggrieved by the continuance of the said proceeding, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

5. Since same question of law and fact are involved, both the cases were heard together.

6. Mr. De, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the fact aforesaid does not constitute any offence under section 406 IPC and since it is a dispute purely of civil nature the prosecution under section 420 IPC is also not maintainable. Mr. Ghosal, learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that apart from the fact that a clear case under section 506 (II) IPC has been prima facie made out, since the petitioners had dishonest and fraudulent intention from the inception not to pay the due amount, thus bringing the offence within the purview of section 420 IPC also, the question of quashing the proceeding does not arise.

7. Quashing of proceeding to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice may be done where: (1) it appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged e.g. absence of requisite sanction, or (2) the allegations in the FIR or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged, or (3) the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. It is to be borne in mind that the power to quash an FIR by this Court can be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. At this stage the Court cannot inquire about reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR nor it can inquire whether the allegations are likely to be est