JUDGMENT 1. - This application arises in the following circumstances :The petitioners were the managers of the Pushpa Motors, Kota, in the year 1962, who were the authorised dealers of the Tata-Mercedes-Benz Truck Chasis on behalf of the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., Bombay. On 22-10-62 complainant Kan Singh applied to Pushpa Motors for booking a Tata-Mercedes-Benz Truck Chasis. The petitioner Y. V. Bapet wrote a letter to the non-petitioner Kan Singh on 24-10-62 asking him to make an application in the form prescribed by them. A form also appears to have been sent to him, which was filed and sent by Kan Singh on 27-10-62. But no booking was made no information of the application was sent to the manufacturers. It appears that on 27-10-62 Pushpa Motors received a telegram from their manufacturers that all deliveries were to be stopped. On 30-10-62 they received another telegram asking them to furnish model wise stock including the vehicles in transit. They were also asked to stop booking additional applications. These instructions were issued because sometime in October, 1962, national emergency was declared. 2. The Government of India later on promulgated the Commercial Vehicles (Distribution and Sale) Control Order, 1963. It appears that Kan Singh continued to pursue the matter and again wrote a letter to the manufacturers. The Pushpa Motors replied to him on 6-9-63 that booking of orders was stopped on account of the declaration of national emergency and if he was keen on booking an order, he was required to call at their office and get the application forms required for the purpose. Kan Singh non-petitioner complained again to the manufacturers and they wrote to him on August 24, 1965 that three chasis were supplied to him in the past in the year I960 and 1961. But as a result of national emergency they had discontinued registration of applications with effect from October, 1962, though the authorised dealers had registered an application during October, 1962 of one Aziz Khan. 3. But as a result of national emergency they had discontinued registration of applications with effect from October, 1962, though the authorised dealers had registered an application during October, 1962 of one Aziz Khan. 3. However, the non-petitioner Kan Singh was not satisfied with this reply and having felt cheated filed a complaint under section 417 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in the court of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kota, on 22-3-66, that the accused had booked a chasis in October, 1962, in the name of one Aziz Khan but they refused to do so in respect of the complainant on the pretext that national emergency had been declared. The booking of chasis was open in October, 1962, and the accused were booking vehicles in the name of other persons. He was thus cheated and put to a considerable loss. The learned magistrate after recording his statements under section 200 Cr. P C. felt that it was a case of civil nature but since the counsel for the complainant wanted to argue the case, the matter was postponed to 25-3-66, on which date after hearing arguments, the case was registered and process was issued against the accused. Since then, the case continued to linger on for some reason or the other. Kan Singh and Jamna Prasad had been examined by 5-2-68. One more witness D.S. Narayanan of the Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd., was being summoned. But the presence of D.S. Narayanan could not, for one reason or the other be secured in spite of the fact that the warrants for his appearance were issued by the learned magistrate and the accused filed an application under section 482 Cr. P. C. in this court on 8-2-76 praying that the proceedings of the lower court under section 417 Indian Penal Code against petitioners be quashed. I have heard arguments and perused the record. 4. Under section 417 Indian Penal Code whoever cheats, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. Section 415 Indian Penal Code defines cheating. I have heard arguments and perused the record. 4. Under section 417 Indian Penal Code whoever cheats, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. Section 415 Indian Penal Code defines cheating. It states that whoever by deceiving a person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived, to deliver any property to any person, or to constant that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived, to do or omit to do anything which he would not do, or omit it if he was not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person, in body, mind reputation or property, is said to "cheat". 5. Now, it will be seen that even if the facts constituting deception and fraud are accepted as true, it cannot obviously be said that the petitioners induced the non-petitioner Kan Singh to deliver any property or to consent that any person shall retain any property. They have also not induced the non-petitioner, to do anything which he would not have done. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner however, submitted that on account of the deception and fraud played upon the non-petitioner, he omitted to do something which he would not have otherwise so omitted. While there is nothing in the complaint or in the statement of the complainant to show specifically what he omitted to do which he would otherwise no; have omitted to do, his counsel now suggested that the non-petitioner omitted to make the deposit (how and how much we do not know) which he would have certainly made if the petitioners had not deceived him by representing that no order could be booked on account of emergency. The whole fraud will be exposed so soon as D.S. Narayanan enters the witness box. As a matter of fact D.S. Narayanan is avoiding to appear to save the petitioner from exposure and punishment. I do not think that these submissions can prevail as the non petitioners had no right to purchase a vehicle from the dealers or from the manufacturers. The booking is a matter of arrangement between the local dealer and the manufacturers. The non-petitioner had acquired neither any statutory nor any contractual right. I do not think that these submissions can prevail as the non petitioners had no right to purchase a vehicle from the dealers or from the manufacturers. The booking is a matter of arrangement between the local dealer and the manufacturers. The non-petitioner had acquired neither any statutory nor any contractual right. He cannot, therefore, be said to have suffered any damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property. He did not care to state at all what loss of money or of any other kind was suffered by him. By mere stating that the intentional omission on the part of the petitioner to book a vehicle for him has put him to a considerable loss is not sufficient for the purpose of section 415 Indian Penal Code I therefore, feel, as the learned Magistrate had felt at the beginning that no case under section 417 Indian Penal Code was made out. The process of the court has certainly been abused in this case and this abuse could not be allowed any more to stand or continue. It is a fit case in which this could should invoke its inherent jurisdiction and prevent further this abuse of process and injustice, 6. Consequently, I accept this application and quash all the proceedings complained of and pending in the court below in this respect. *******