Mere breach of contract does not give rise to a criminal prosecution. For the offence of cheating, there must be a deception which should precede the fraudulent or dishonest inducement and it must be established that the intention of the accused was dishonest at the time of making the promise.

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceeding initiated against the petitioner in ICC Case No. 4 of 1983 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalahandi at Bhawani-patna. On a complaint petition filed by the opposite party against the petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order dated 31-3-1983 took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 420, Penal Code, and directed for issuance of summons against the petitioner. The petitioner in this revision challenges the said order of taking cognizance and has prayed for quashing the entire proceeding.

( 2 ) THE case of the opposite party as unfolded in the complaint petition is that on 1-12-1982 when the accused was moving in the bus stand, he met the complainant and they talked with each other since both of them were known to each other for a long time. In course of the said talk, the complainant enquired from the accused as to whether good rice is available in the weekly market at Dharamgarh, to which the accused replied in the affirmative. The complainant then wanted to purchase rice worth Rs. 400/- for his domestic consumption and the accused told him that if money was paid he would purchase the same from the market and keep it with him. The complainant thereafter handed over Rs. 400/- to the accused and told him that he would go and fetch the rice from the accused at Dharamgarh. Thereafter on several occasions the complainant went to the accused but the accused concealed himself. Lastly, on 22-3-1983, the complainant met the accused at Dharamgarh and when the complainant asked the accused about his money, the accused avoided and ran away saying mat he had much work and would meet the complainant later on. On these allegations, a prayer was made that cognizance may be taken of the offence under S. 420, Penal Code. The learned Magistrate thereafter took the initial statement of the complainant wherein the complainant merely corroborated what he had stated in the complaint petition and the learned Magistrate then took cognizance of the offence under S. 420, Penal Code, by his order dated 31-3-1983.

( 3 ) MR. Misra for the petitioner contends that all the allegations made in the complaint petition as well as the initial statement of the complainant recorded by the

Magistrate taken on their face value do not make out the offence under S. 415, Penal Code, and necessarily, therefore, the order taking cognisance of the offence under S. 420, Penal Code, is invalid and should be quashed by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the opposite party-complainant, however, submits that the allegations in the complaint petition as well as the initial statement recorded by the Magistrate taken together clearly establish the offence under S. 420, Penal Code, and cognisance having been taken thereon, the extraordinary power of this Court under S. 482, Cr. P. C. , should not be invoked to quash the same.

( 4 ) IT is undisputed that the inherent power of this Court should be sparingly exercised and only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there has been abuse of the process of law, or there has been gross miscarriage of justice. There have been large number of authorities on this point, but it is sufficient to note the decision of this Court in the case of Satrughana Dalabehera v. State, 1983 Cut LR (Cri) 303, where the learned Judge relied on a large number of earlier decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court on the point. There cannot be any dispute that when the High Court comes to the conclusion that taking all the allegations made in the complaint petition as they are without adding or subtracting anything that the offence in question is not made out, then the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the order of cognisance as well as the proceeding itself. In t