IMPORTANT POINT
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception of the agreement.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 has died hence, he does not press the petition on behalf of petitioner no.1.

3. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is rejected as not pressed so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners presses this criminal miscellaneous petition on behalf of the petitioner nos.2 to 5 only.

5. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No. 249 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.3084 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 26.03.2018 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 504, 506, 406, 420, 341 and 34 of Indian Penal Code but no witnesses has been examined in this case, so far in the trial court.

6. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner nos.2 to 4 being the directors and petitioner no.5 being the Manager of KRL Infratech (India) Ltd., employed the Hywa vehicle of the informant for five months six days, the total consideration amount payable to the informant is Rs.11,51,305/- but the petitioners have paid Rs.7,39,974/- and when the informant went to demand his outstanding dues, the petitioners threatened to kill the informant and throw his dead body inside the colliery.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners are false and there is no allegation against the petitioners of having any intention to deceive the informant who claims to be victim since the inception rather the materials in the record indicates that the case is to the contrary, as admittedly, the informant has been paid more than half of the claimed amount. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this case is counter blast to Complaint Case No. 2122 of 2016 filed by the petitioner no.5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the informant claims that he entered into an agreement with M/s KRL Infratech (India) Ltd. but as the said KRL Infratech (India) Ltd. has not been arraigned as an accused so the prosecution against the petitioners; without any specific allegation against them, is not maintainable. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute and a cloak of criminal colour is tried to be given by the informant to harass the petitioners by falsely implicating them in a criminal case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the claim of the informant of Rs.4,11,331/- is on the basis of an invalid agreement the period of which expired since long. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under :-

6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx

It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that it is a settled principle of law that in order to constitute the offence of cheating the accused must have the intention to deceive the victim since the very beginning but if the intention to cheat develops later on, the same will not amount to cheating.

8. In this respect, learned counsel for the peti