JUDGMENT Ryves, J. - This is an extraordinary case. It appears that a boy Allah Baksh was married to Musammat Bundya who was much older. Recently the girl had grown up to womanhood, but the boy was only thirteen years old. The mother of Allah Baksh and his elder brother Jumman thought it would be inadvisable to bring the bride to the house owing to the infancy of the bridegroom, so they went to the father of the bride and suggested to him that if he paid back certain money and ornaments, which apparently had been given to the bride at the time of marriage, the marriage would be put an end to. The father of the bride called a panchayat and asked all the leading men such as the zamindar, the school teacher and the Court of Wards Ziledar to attend and the punches came to the conclusion that the arrangement was reasonable, and in accordance with their advice the bride's father agreed and the money and property demanded was made over and a formal receipt was written by the school teacher and the parties affixed their thumb impressions to it. The parties are Muhammadans of humble position and no doubt they thought and everybody thought that the marriage had been legally put an and to. Subsequently, however, one Mangalia, an uncle of Allah Baksh, lodged a complaint against the bride's father u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code, What Mangalia had to do with the business I cannot understand. Anyhow that charge failed on the ground that assuming the girl's marriage had not been legally put an end to, she had not married anybody subsequently. Then this charge was brought by the bride's father against Musammat Mohania and Jumman u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 150 each, This conviction has been upheld on appeal and the parties come here in revision. 2. The learned Judge finds that there was no dishonest inducement on the part of the accused to make the complainant pay the money. After this finding it seems to me impossible to hold that any charge of cheating can be made out. 150 each, This conviction has been upheld on appeal and the parties come here in revision. 2. The learned Judge finds that there was no dishonest inducement on the part of the accused to make the complainant pay the money. After this finding it seems to me impossible to hold that any charge of cheating can be made out. The learned Judge gives what he calls the three ingredients of cheating namely, (1) intention, (2) employment of unlawful means, and (3) acquisition of property to which one has no right. He goes on to say that u/s 43 of the Indian Penal Code the word "illegal" is applicable to everything which furnishes ground for a civil action. He says "as the consideration for the contract, viz., the dissolution of the marriage has failed, I think the complainant is entitled to seek his remedy for the refund of the money paid by him through the Civil Court; in other words unlawful means wore employed by the appellants." 3. I quite agree with the learned Judge so far that it is possible that the complainant may have a right to recover the money and property through the Civil Court, but on the finding that there was no dishonest intention on the part of accused, and I think this is probably right because being in that class of life, very probably, they did think that the marriage could be legally put an end to in these open and formal proceedings, the charge must fail. The definition of cheating is given in section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Applying that definition to the facts of this case it seems to me that no criminal case has been made out. 4. I therefore accept this revision, acquit Jumman and Musammat Mohania of the offence of which they have been convicted and direct that the fine, if paid, will be refunded. 5. The accused are on bail, they need not surrender.