ORDER :

Mr. Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No. 169/2022 registered with Losal Police Station District Sikar for offences under Section 420 and 406 IPC at the behest of respondent No.2.

2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

3. According to FIR, the petitioner had taken a loan from respondent No.2, for his business, to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The petitioner handed over a cheque of Rs. 4,00,000/- bearing cheque No. 138384 to respondent No.2 as refund of the aforesaid loan amount along with interest. Respondent No.2 placed the cheque before the Bank on 28.7.2022, however the cheque was returned on very next day i.e. 29.7.2022 with endorsement that the Bank Account was already closed on 9.11.2021. Thereafter respondent No.2 demanded the money from the petitioner and petitioner allegedly committed abuse and assault and threatened to falsely implicate in any criminal case. Hence the impugned FIR.

Thereafter, the respondent No.2 instituted a complaint case also under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the FIR does not disclose commission of offences for which the FIR has been registered, it would be an abuse of process of law to continue with the FIR, as such same requires to be quashed. Learned counsel next contends that the FIR has been maliciously instituted as retaliation to FIR No. 178 dated 21.10.2021 registered with Local Police Station against respondent No.2 and others with allegation that on 20.10.2021, respondent No.2 and others had come to the shop of the petitioner to purchase clothes. They had purchased, however wanted to take away the clothes without making payment immediately and for that reason, an occurrence of abuse and assault took place.

5. From the record, it is evident that the police had submitted negative report after investigation of FIR No. 178/2021, copy of the report is at Annexure-3. In that report, the police specifically reported that respondent No.2 is a business man dealing with grains and petitioner has a Ganpati clothes and ready-made store. The police report dated 27.12.2021 further reveals that the petitioner, about three years back had taken loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- from respondent No.2 at the interest of 1.5 per hundred and by way of security had issued two cheques of Rs. 4,00,000/- each. The loan amount of one cheque was paid and the cheque was returned to the petitioner, however another cheque bearing No. 138384 remained with respondent No.2 due to non payment of the rest of the loan amount.

6. The respondents have not denied the correctness of the aforesaid police report, however contends that if the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, the FIR cannot be scuttled at the threshold. Only for the reason that a civil dispute is also made out, the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed if the ingredients of criminal offences are prima facie made out. Learned counsel contends that since the Bank account was already closed on the date of issuance of cheque, the petitioner had dishonest intention that the cheque would be honoured.

7. In Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat and Anr. , AIR 2019 SC 1538 , the accused had borrowed loan from the complainant. The loan amount was not refunded, hence a civil suit was instituted by the complainant of the case. In the fact of the case, which was identical to the present case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that mere breach of compromise, agreement or contract does not constitute offence under Section 405 IPC without there being a case of entrustment.

In the case on hand, the transaction was not of entrustment of property to