Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. K. Gooptu, Mr. A. Das, Mr. N. Sharma, Mr. D. Das.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Mr. T. Deuri, Mr. B.K. Kashyap.

Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:

1. The FIR filed by the informant does not contain the essential ingredients required to establish the offences of cheating or breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code. Specifically, there is no indication of dishonest intention at the time of entering into the agreement or subsequent conduct that would amount to deception (!) (!) (!) .

2. The dispute between the parties is of a civil nature, relating to contractual obligations and claims, which are more appropriately resolved through arbitration as per the arbitration clause in the agreement (!) (!) .

3. The investigation and subsequent criminal proceedings are considered an abuse of process of law because they are based on allegations that do not prima facie constitute a cognizable offence, especially given the existence of an arbitration agreement and ongoing arbitration proceedings (!) (!) .

4. The criminal law is not intended to criminalize breach of civil contractual obligations unless there is clear evidence of fraudulent or dishonest conduct with the intent to deceive at the time of the transaction. Mere breach or failure to fulfill contractual obligations, without such intent, does not amount to criminal offences (!) (!) (!) .

5. The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to the principles of justice by not allowing criminal proceedings to proceed when the allegations do not meet the necessary legal criteria for criminal offences, especially when civil remedies are available and arbitration has been invoked (!) (!) .

6. The court has the authority under its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings that are initiated without sufficient legal basis or that amount to an abuse of process, to prevent unwarranted harassment and protect the rights of the accused (!) .

7. The continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner is unwarranted because the allegations do not establish the requisite criminal intent or ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 408, and 420 of the IPC. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed (!) .

In summary, the court finds that the criminal proceedings are not justified based on the facts and legal principles, and they are therefore quashed to prevent abuse of the judicial process.