IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that for the offence of cheating, there must be fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, and every breach of contract would not amount to cheating.

JUDGMENT :

Both petitions are being heard together as the complaint as well as the order taking cognizance are same in both the petitions.

2. Both these petitions have been filed for quashing of the order dated 26.2.2013 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.764 of 2012 under sections 406, 420, 506, 120B IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The complaint case has been filed by the O.P.no.2 alleging therein that on 27.9.2009 the petitioners and one another person came to the complainant and requested to be part of M/s Goyal Herbal Pvt. Ltd as they are ready to appoint him as Super Stockist which is owned by G.D.Goyal and Vijay Agrawal. On 29.09.2009 the petitioners and one another came to the business premised of O.P.No.2 and gave format for appointing as Super Stockist under letter head of M/s Goyal Herbal Pvt. Ltd along with terms and condition for being Super Stockist and said that appointment letter will be handed over to him within a week. The said that the articles will be sold out in market and for which they will assist him and appoint stockiest and will also make arrangement for sale of articles. Believing on their assurance the O.P.No.2 paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- for supply of articles and thereafter articles for Rs.44,507/- were sent to the O.P.No.2. Thereafter O.P.No.2 paid Rs.4,10,000/- to said company and against which articles were sent followed by credit notes. However, on perusal of credit memos and money receipts the O.P.No.2 noticed that signature of authorized signatory of the company was absent and thereafter they assured to give genuine money receipt and credit notes. The O.P.No.2 sent legal notice on 26.8.2011 and 22.11.2011 for return of amount and on 17.12.2011 another notice was given but the amount never returned but no reply of notice was given rather they threatened O.P.No.2 to implicate in criminal case. It is alleged that the complainant was cheated by them and caused loss of Rs.6,75,000/-. Hence this case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is business transaction between the petitioners and the O.P.No.2 for distributorship of herbal articles and the said agreement was entered into with certain terms and conditions. He submits that business was started and herbal items were being supplied by the petitioners, however, O.P.No.2 has not been able to sell the articles and that is why he has disputed the things and for that complaint case was filed. He submits that there is no intention of the petitioners from the very beginning of cheating the O.P.No.2 and in that view of the matter, the entire proceeding is bad in law considering that for civil wrong, a criminal case is lodged.

5. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that there is allegation against the petitioners and the amount in question was paid by cheque and inspite of repeated requests the said amount was not returned and legal notices were also issued and thereafter the complaint case has been filed. He submits that in that view of the matter, this Court may not interfere at this stage sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that learned court has taken cognizance looking into solemn affirmation and the evidence of the enquiry witnesses.

7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the complaint case as well as the order taking cognizance and finds that in paragraph no.7 it has been stated that complaint was receiving articles sent by bus service and at the instance of accused persons from time to time along with cash memo followed by credit memo sent by courier or post at the residential address of the complainant which suggest that business has come in operation and due to certain further dispute, the business was stopped. It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheatin