SARRAF, J. - (1.) THE brief facts pertaining to the matter are that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate No. 15, Jaipur City alleging therein that the respondent No. 2 being relative of the petitioner advanced Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner by way of a demand draft on 20. 11. 2001. It was agreed that the petitioner would be paying yearly interest on the aforesaid amount to the respondent No. 2 which would be added to the principal amount and the petitioner would return the amount if needed by the respondent No. 2. THE petitioner sent a confirmation of account on 1. 4. 2006 wherein the amount of principal and interest was shown as Rs. 3,11,683/ -. THE respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to return the aforesaid amount immediately but the petitioner first made excuses and ultimately refused to do so on 10. 12. 2007 and committed criminal breach of trust by investing the amount in his factory with a view to earn profit. THE complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to police station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur City (East) where F. I. R. No. 91 dated 2. 2. 2008 under Sections 406, 420 IPC has been registered.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Reading the averments in the complaint in their entirety and accepting the allegations to be true, the ingredients of intentional deception on the part of the petitioner have not been stated nor indirectly suggested in the complaint. All that the respondent No. 2 has alleged against the petitioner in the complaint is that the petitioner failed to return the amount which he had borrowed from the respondent No. 2. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the contract. Except using the expression criminal breach of trust the allegations in the complaint do not at all disclose as to how the petitioner can be found guilty of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. It is surely not within the province of the police to investigate into a first information report which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and Cr. P. C. does not impose upon them the duty of inquiry in such cases. Even going by the allegations in the complaint allowing the criminal proceedings to go on against the petitioner would result in abuse of the process of the court. In the result the petition is allowed and the complaint of the respondent No. 2 and the first information report No. 91/2008 registered on the basis of the complaint at the police station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur City (East) are hereby quashed. .;