D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision petition the complainant seeks to challenge the order of the S. D. J. M. , Jaipur in I. C. C. No. 321 of 1981 dismissing his complaint and dis. charging the opposite parties under Section 245 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. ( 2 ) THE gist of the facts relevant for the present proceeding are that the petitioner filed a complaint against the two opposite parties, opposite party No. 1 being the father of opposite party No. 2, alleging inter alia that he had authorised one Bidyadhar Bank on 9-5-1979 to receive 100 bags of cement allotted to him for his Cement Tile Factory (Sanamukhi Tile Factory, Jaipur) from the cement factory at Rajgangpur on 10-5-1979. When the latter appeared before the Company authorities and wanted to deposit the money for taking delivery of the cement bags he was informed that the stock had already been lifted by some person giving out the name of the complainant. The said Bidyadhar Bank returned to Jaipur and intimated the petitioner about what transpired at Rajgangpur. Then the petitioner gave a report to the local police relating to the matter. Subsequently, be came to learn that the opposite party had lifted the stock of cement allotted to him falsely giving out his name. ( 3 ) IN the enquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code the said Bidyadhar Bank and the petitioner were examined. They gave statements supporting the allegations noted above. On consideration of their statements, the learned Magistrate came to hold that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 does not make out a case of cheating under Section 420, Indian Penal Code which if unrebuted would warrant a conviction. As such, seeing no sufficient ground for proceeding against the opposite parties, he dismissed the complaint. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the material produced before him the learned Magistrate should have held that a prima facie case under Section 420, Indian Penal Code was made out aod he should have issued processes against the opposite parties. The learned counsel has placed the evidence of the two witnesses examined in the enquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned counsel has placed the evidence of the two witnesses examined in the enquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. All that they have stated is that on reaching Rajgangpur Bidyadhar Bank (P. W. 1) was told by the authorities of the company that stock: meant for the complainant-petitioner had been lifted from the factory by somebody. Af[er getting this information from Bidyadhar Bank, the petitioner could come to know that the opposite parties were responsible for lifting the stock of cement from the factory. ( 5 ) THE ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 415, Indian Penal Code are: (i) There should be fraudulents or dishonest of a person by deceiving him; (ii) (a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; (iii) In cases covered by (ii) (b) the act or omission should be one who causes or is likely to cause damages or harm to the person induced in body, mind or reputation or property. It is of the essence of the offence of cheating that the delivery of property should be by the petson who himself was deceived by the accused. So no offence of cheating can be said to have been committed if one person is induced by deception to do or omit to do something and the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damages or harm to another person. In order to come within the scope of cheating by personation as defined under Section 416. Indian Penal Code in addition to the above ingredients there must be evidence to show that the person deceived was induced by such deceptation to deliver property or otherwise to act to his own detriment. ( 6 ) IN the present case, there is no material to prima facie satisfy these essential ingredients of the offence of cheating. There is no offence even to show that the accused persons lifted the cement quota meant for the complainant. In these circumstances, the Court below was justified in refusing to issue processes to the accused persons. ( 6 ) IN the present case, there is no material to prima facie satisfy these essential ingredients of the offence of cheating. There is no offence even to show that the accused persons lifted the cement quota meant for the complainant. In these circumstances, the Court below was justified in refusing to issue processes to the accused persons. ( 7 ) IN the result, the revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .