S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition by Complainant Ashwini Kumar Sharma to this Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. arises in the following facts and circumstances; on 7. 1. 1978, the complainant filed a complaint for offence under sections 417 and 500 Indian Penal Code against non-applicant Hemraj Sharma in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Briefly speaking, the complaint was based on the following allegations; The complainant had been a resident of Raigarh. The non-applicant had been a resident of Cuttack. On 21. 7. 1977, when the complainant was in Cuttack, the non-applicant put a proposal to him for the marriage of his daughter with the complainants son. The proposal was accepted by the complainant. It was promised by the non-applicant that he would come to Raigarh on 1. 9. 1977 and perform the ceremony of Tilak at the residence of the complainant. In between 21. 7. 1977 and 1. 9. 1977 the non-applicant confirmed his above said promise in his letters and talks on telephone. Acting on the representation of the non-applicant, the complainant made elaborate arrangements for the ceremony of Tilak at his residence and invited a lot of his relations, friends and well wishers to attend the same. But, then, on crucial day, the non applicant did not reach Raigarh as promised nor did he offer any explanation, thereafter for his conduct. His said conduct was a deliberate one and was intended to insult the complainant, causes harm to his reputation and put him to financial loss. For his said conduct, the non-applicant was liable to be convicted and sentenced for offences under sections 417 and 500 Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) AFTER examining upon oath the complainant, the Magistrate, being of the opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the non-applicant for offence under section 500 I. P. C. , ordered issue of process for the attendance of the non-applicant. On 3. 5. 1978, when the non- applicant appeared in the Court, the Judicial Magistrate explained the particulars of the offence to him. The non-applicant pleaded not guilty to the offence. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate directed the complainant to produce his evidence. For one reason or the other, the recording of evidence of complaints witnesses could be completed only by October, 1981. Thereafter, the non- applicant was heard and examined on 20. 10. 1961. The non-applicant pleaded not guilty to the offence. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate directed the complainant to produce his evidence. For one reason or the other, the recording of evidence of complaints witnesses could be completed only by October, 1981. Thereafter, the non- applicant was heard and examined on 20. 10. 1961. The recording of evidence of the defence could be completed only by Perjury, 1983. The case was, thereafter, fixed for arguments. At this stage, an application was made on behalf of the complainant, purporting to be one under section 216 Cr. P. C. , for adding the charge under section 417 Indian Penal Code also against the non-applicant. The Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application vide his order dated 3. 3. 1983. Being aggrieved by the order the complainant preferred a revision in the Court of Session. The Court of Session dismissed the said revision vide its order dated 1. 2. 1984. It is seen that the complainant has now moved this Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) IN the opinion of this Court, the Courts below failed to appreciate the point in controversy in its true and proper perspective. As already stated above, the complaint made by the complainant against the non-applicant was not only for an offence under section 500 Indian Penal Code but also for that under section 417 Indian Penal Code. Again, though the issue of process to the non- applicant was for an offence under section 500 Indian Penal Code, and the particulars of the offence explained to him on 3. 5. 1978 were stated to constitute an offence under that section, the said particulars prima facie constituted an offence only under section 417 Indian Penal Code and not that under Section 500 Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) IN the above connection, it would be useful to re-produce the particulars of the offence that were explained to the non-applicant on 3. 5. 1978. ( 4 ) IN the above connection, it would be useful to re-produce the particulars of the offence that were explained to the non-applicant on 3. 5. 1978. The said particulars were as follows: AAvki Jh gsejkt kekz vkret Jh jke yky kekz] ubz Ldwy dvd] ftyk dvd mm+hlk izkur/2] viuh iq=h ypeh dh kknh vfflk;ksxh Jh vouh ds iqiq Jh kfkdkur is djus dk oknk fd;k rfkk fnukad 2-9-77 dks 11 cts fryd djus dk ok;nk djds tkucw> dj vfllk;ksx dks viekfur djus ekufid dv igqapkus rfkk lekt esa mudk vukiij djus dh nfv is fryd u djds mudh izfrbk esa /kddk igqapk;k AAA Thus, according to the abovesaid particulars, the non-applicant, after having agreed to marry his daughter with the son of the complainant, and after having promised that as would come to Raigarh to perform the Tilak ceremony at the residence of the complainant, willfully did not keep his said promise with a view to insult the complainant, caused harm to his reputation, and put him to financial loss and that the said act of the non-applicant did result in harming the reputation of the complainant. ( 5 ) NOW, cheating is defined under section 415 Indian Penal Code and a simple case of cheating is made punishable under section 417 Indian Penal Code. According to the relevant part of section 415 Indian Penal Code, whoever by deceiving any person, intentionally induces the person so deceived to do anything which he would not do if he were not so deceived, and which act causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat. As per the Explanation to the said Section, a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of the Section. Thus, from the particulars of the offence explained to the nonapplicant, the accusation against the non-applicant was prima faded that of cheating punishable under section 417 Indian Penal Code. It was apparent that section 500 Indian Penal Code was wrongly mentioned as covering the said accusation. On the face of it, the offence of defamation under section 500 Indian Penal Code needed making or publishing of a defamatory imputation against the aggrieved party as one of the essential ingredients of the said offence. It was apparent that section 500 Indian Penal Code was wrongly mentioned as covering the said accusation. On the face of it, the offence of defamation under section 500 Indian Penal Code needed making or publishing of a defamatory imputation against the aggrieved party as one of the essential ingredients of the said offence. Neither in the complaint made by the complainant, nor in the particulars of the offence explained to the non-applicant, there was anything with regard to the non-applicant having made or published any defamatory imputation against the complainant. ( 6 ) COMING to the procedure applicable in the case, section 251 Criminal Procedure Code provides that when in a summons case the accused appears or in brought before the Magistrate the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any de fence to make. But it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. However, there can be no doubt that the object of stating the particulars of the offence to the accused under the said section is the same as in a case in which the Court is required to frame a formal charge. The object is that the facts constituting the essential ingredients of the offence should be stated to the accused and understood by him before pleading guilty or otherwise to the offence. It therefore, follows that in a case where the facts constituting the offence were duly stated to the accused at the stage of section 251 Criminal Procedure Code there does not exist any hurdle in the way of his being punished for an offence under the proper provision of law even though wrong provision of law might have been mentioned by mistake at the stage of section 251 Criminal Procedure Code. The only thing which is required to be safeguarded in such a case is to ensure that no material prejudice in the matter relating to his right to defend is caused to the accused in the process. The logic behind the provisions contained in section 464 Criminal Procedure Code supports the above-said conclusion. ( 7 ) IT is true that a period of more than seven years has already elapsed since the filing of the complaint. The logic behind the provisions contained in section 464 Criminal Procedure Code supports the above-said conclusion. ( 7 ) IT is true that a period of more than seven years has already elapsed since the filing of the complaint. But, then what is greatly significant is that the complainant is in no way responsible for the error committed by the Magistrate in mentioning a wrong provision of law while describing the nature of offence committed by the non-applicant. The complainant did emphasis in his complaint that the act of the non-applicant amounted to cheating and he was liable to be punished under section 417 Indian Penal Code. Again, in March, 1980 he tried to bring to the notice of the Magistrate the fact that the allegations made against the non-applicant constituted an offence under section 417 Indian Penal Code and that the said section be added in the particulars of the offence explained to the non-applicant. But, then, unfortunately, the Magistrate did not care to apply his mind to the point raised by the complainant and rejected the prayer made by him. It is clear that in the circumstances as mentioned above, there is no justification for dismissing the present petition made by the complainant under. Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code on the ground of any lacunae on his part. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The order dated 1. 21984 passed by the Court of Session is set aside. So also, the order dated 1. 3. 1983 passed by the Judicial Magistrate is set aside. It is held that the particulars explained to the non-applicant on 35. 1978 the offence alleged against him was wrongly described as one falling under section 500 Indian Penal Code and that the same should have been described as that falling under section 417 Indian Penal Code. The necessary correction shall be made by the Judicial Magistrate in the particulars of the offence accordingly. The correct particulars of the offence shall be re-stated by the Magistrate afresh to the non-applicant under section 251 Criminal Procedure Code on a date fixed by him for the purpose. Thereafter, the case shall be retried by the Judicial Magistrate from the said stage according to law. The correct particulars of the offence shall be re-stated by the Magistrate afresh to the non-applicant under section 251 Criminal Procedure Code on a date fixed by him for the purpose. Thereafter, the case shall be retried by the Judicial Magistrate from the said stage according to law. ( 9 ) IN order to avoid any further delay in the disposal of the case, it is ordered that both the parties shall appear before the Judicial Magistrate on 22. 7. 1985 for further orders. Petition allowed. .