MANOJ KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J, J. ( 1 ) THE opposite party Smt. Renuka Mukherjee filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Asansol. In the complaint, the complainant alleged inter alia, as follows: ( 2 ) THE complainant was appointed distributor, in respect of cosmetic articles manufactured by the petitioner, for certain parts of the District of Burdwan. Against the products supplied by the accused, the complainant paid him in cash from time to time. During the continuance of the business, their relationship became strained and ultimately, they entered into an agreement, whereby the petitioner undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 15,872/- to the complainant in settlement of their claims and counter-claims. In terms of the said agreement, the petitioner went to the residence of the complain ant at Asansol on August 20. 1980 and handed over to her three cheques one dated 11. 9. 80 for Rs. 5. 000/-, another dated 30. 9. 80 for Rs. 5. 000/- and another dated 15. 10. 80 for Rs. 5. 872/- covering the entire agreed amount of Rs. 15,872/ -. According to the complainant at the time the cheques were handed over, the petitioner induced her to sign a typed letter purported to be a receipt acknowledging full settlement of the dues receivable from the petition. While the first cheque was honoured, the other two cheques were dishonoured, as in the meantime the petitioner had intimated the Bank to stop payment of the other two cheques. ( 3 ) ON the aforesaid allegations, the complainant averred that the petitioner committed offences under section 420 and 406 IPC. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate took congnizance upon the said complainant and after examining the complainant and her husband issued process against the accused under sections 420 and 403 IPC. Aggrieved by the issuance of the process the petitioner preferred this revisional application for quashing the proceeding of the said case and obtained the instant Rule. ( 5 ) IT passes my comprehension how the complainant could invoke section 406 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations made in the complaint and how the learned Magistrate could have issued process under Section 403 IPC. ( 5 ) IT passes my comprehension how the complainant could invoke section 406 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations made in the complaint and how the learned Magistrate could have issued process under Section 403 IPC. The petitioner at no point of time was holding any property-cash in the instant case of the complainant and consequently there could not be any question of entrustment or misappropriation of such property. ( 6 ) AS regards the charge under section 420 I. P. C. the complainant rested her case solely on the allegation that she was induced to part with a receipt against the said three cheques which receipt she would not have granted in full satisfaction of her claim, had she known that the cheques would not be honoured. As stated earlier, all the three cheques, which were handed over on August 20, 19r0, were post-dated and one of the cheques was honoured. In the facts of the instant case, there could not be cheating for instance of such post dated cheques. That apart, the receipt obtained by the petitioner cannot be a valuable security, for by issuing such receipt a person does not deprive himself of his right if, in fact he has not got the cash receivable under the cheque. ( 7 ) IN the case of M. K. Shuw v. Emperor1 a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar receipt observed as follows: The receipt does not extinguish or release any legal right. Until payment of these charges, the rights of the Atlas Agency against M. L. Shaw and Co Ltd. remain, and the giving of the receipt does not cancel or extinguish them. The receipt could be given in evidence to prove that the payment had actually been made but it would always be open to the Atlas Agency to rebut this evidence by showing that in fact no payment had been received by them. ( 8 ) THE Court further observed as under: In either case a cheque is only a promise to pay, either on demand or upon the date to which it is been post-dated. Therefore, the only effect of the receipt is an acknowledgement that a promise to pay has been given by M. L. Shaw and Go, to the Atlas Agency by means or the cheque in question. Therefore, the only effect of the receipt is an acknowledgement that a promise to pay has been given by M. L. Shaw and Go, to the Atlas Agency by means or the cheque in question. It is clear, therefore, that this receipt cannot even come within the last part of section 30 which says whereby person. acknowledged that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, it must be held that no prima facie case, either of cheating or criminal misappropriation was made out against the petitioner entitling the learned Magistrate to issue process against him under sections 420 and 403 Indian Penal Code. The application, accordingly, succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. The impugned proceeding is hereby quashed. Revision allowed.