JUDGMENT : 1. Wahajuddin, the complainant in this case, is a shop-keeper at Moradabad. He ordered a consignment of matches from a firm of Calcutta, which describes itself as A.M. Essobhoy of Calcutta and he received a consignment which, according to his allegations, was so seriously damaged as not to be marketable, and was in any case not of the quality of goods which he had ordered and for which he had been made to pay in advance. He brought a complaint before a Magistrate at Moradabad in which the accused was specified as being “A.M. Essobhoy,” resident at a certain address at Calcutta. The complaint was made under Ss. 417 and 409, I.P.C. A warrant issued against the accused as described in the complaint was eventually executed on the person of one Usuf Ali in Calcutta, who was brought before the Magistrate who had issued the warrant. He was there bound over to appear and answer the charge. 2. The said Usuf Ali has applied to this Court in revision to have the whole proceedings taken against him quashed. There is first of all a question of jurisdiction. 3. In so far as the complainant alleges an offence under S. 409, I.P.C., to have been committed, I feel no hesitation in holding that offence, if committed at all, was committed in Calcutta and is not triable in Moradabad either by reason of the provisions of Section 179 or of Section 182 of the Cr PC. 4. The case is otherwise, in my opinion, with regard to the alleged offence of cheating. The complainant's case is that he was deceived by means of certain letters received from Calcutta; this took place, if at all, when he read those letters, and, therefore, took place at Moradabad. The complainant alleges that by reason of this deception he was induced to do that which he would not otherwise have done, that is to say, he handed over to the post office at Moradabad for delivery to a certain address in Calcutta a certain registered cover containing Government currency notes. It seems fairly arguable that the entire offence of cheating, if committed at all, was completed in Moradabad. It seems fairly arguable that the entire offence of cheating, if committed at all, was completed in Moradabad. Even if there be room for the argument that the offence was not completed until the registered covers containing the currency notes were delivered to the addressee in Calcutta, the provisions of Section 182 of the Cr PC would apply so as to make the offence triable in Moradabad. I hold, therefore that the Magistrate at Moradabad had jurisdiction to take cognizance of this complaint. 5. His subsequent proceedings I am unable to endorse. The examination of the complainant was conducted without any reference to those ingredients in the offence of cheating as defined in S. 415, I.P.C., which distinguish the offence of cheating from a mere breach of contract. The examination of the complainant Wahajuddin, which is recorded on the back of his complaint does not seem to me to disclose any adequate ground for holding that an offence punishable under S. 417, I.P.C., had been committed by any person. Apart from this there is nothing in the complaint, or in the deposition of Wahajuddin, to warrant any action being taken against the accused Usuf Ali. If it be the complainant's case that it was Usuf Ali who, making himself under the name of A.M. Essobhoy, obtained delivery of those currency notes, that fact should have been made clear in the complainant's deposition, before action was taken against this accused. It has been urged before me in argument that the complainant desires an opportunity of proceeding further in this matter and believes himself to be in a position to produce evidence such as to satisfy the Court that a criminal offence punishable under S. 417, I.P.C., as distinguished from an actionable breach of contract was in fact committed upon him and that it was committed by the aooused Usuf Ali. The order which I propose to pass in the present case should not be held to debar Wahajuddin from filing a fresh complaint on proper materials if he is so advised. 6. The case as it stands before me now does not warrant the action which has been taken, or the taking of any further action, as against the accused Usuf Ali. I quash all the proceedings in this case and direct that the record be returned to the Court of the Magistrate to be there consigned to the record room.