ORDER 1. The petitioner is a playback singer. A society called “Kerala Film Artists 6c Critics Society”, selected him as the best Malayalam playback singer for the year 1985 The President of the said Society filed a complaint against the petitioner and another person alleging that they committed an offence of cheating against the Society. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum before whom the complaint was filed, took cognizance of the offence under Sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner has come up with this petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The facts disclosed in the complaint read thus: The Society used to celebrate “Award Nights” with variety entertainments etc., and awards are given away during those celebrations for the best Malayalam film of the year and also the best artists in cinematography. The petitioner was selected as the best Malayalam play back singer for the year 1985. An Award Night was arranged to be held in the University Senate Hall, Trivandrum on 16 2 1986 in which the presentation of awards to the winners would be made The petitioner was informed of this over the phone and in reply thereto the petitioner told the complainant that he would then perform a music concert (Ganamela) free of cost during the Award Night He requested the complainant to make arrangements to get the assistance of an orchestra to play the background music The complainant in turn made arrangements with “Ajantha orchestra” of Trivandrum to play the background when songs are sung by the petitioner. A sum of Rs.1,000 was paid to the petitioner towards his conveyance and other incidental expenses as demanded by him, The petitioner sent a list to the complainant regarding the songs intended to be presented to the audiance during the Award Night The petitioner reached Trivandrum on the date of the Award Night but he informed the complainant that he was not ready to present the music concert He resiled from his earlier promise and did not present the programme According to the complainant the petitioners did so with the fraudulent and dishonest intention to cause damage to the Society and also to cause harm to the reputation of the Society Complainant further says that the Society consequently sustained huge loss of money as also loss of reputation. On these allegations, the respondent filed the complaint. On these allegations, the respondent filed the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint does not disclose any offence, much less the offence of cheating as defined in Sec.415 of the I.P.C., and hence the Chief Judicial Magistrate was in error in taking cognizance of the offence of cheating. It cannot be doubted that, if the complaint does not disclose an offence, (either an offence of cheating or any other offence) cognizance ought not have been taken on that complaint Nor can it be doubted that if cognizance was taken inspite of it and if this Court is informed of it, this Court has the jurisdiction to interfere in exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Vide Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan 1983 MLJ.(Crl.) 440:A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 67:(1983)1 S.C.J. 228 ). 4. The offence of cheating is defined in Sec.415, I.P.C. It reads thus: “415. Cheating-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person or to consent 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 if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or, is likely to cause damage or harm to the person in body, mind, reputation or property is said to “cheat”.” 5. Even without going into the latter limb of the said definition, it is clear that the primary ingredient of the offence is deception played by the accused by fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to do or omit to do something or to deliver any property to any person etc “Fraudulently” is defined in Sec.25 of the I.P.C. as the doing of a thing with intent to defraud “Dishonestly” is defined in Sec.24 of the I.P.C. as doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, Unless there is an allegation in a complaint that the accused had either dishonestly or fraudulently induced the person on whom he played the deception, no offence of cheating can come out of the complaint It is of course not necessary that those words should find a place in the complaint But it is necessary that such a case is discernible from the complaint If the complaint is silent about that aspect, the consequence is that the complaint would be bereft of the basic ingredient of the offence A dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact of a subsequent breach of promise In this context it is apposite to refer to the observation of the Supreme Court in the State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai & another State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai & another (1972)3 S.C.C. 661 :1972 S.C.C. (Crl.) 705:1972 Crl.L.J. 1243:A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 326: “To hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. Such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise”. Reference is also made to the decision in Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and others Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and others (1973)2 S.C.C. 823 :1973 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1082:A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 301. Such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise”. Reference is also made to the decision in Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and others Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and others (1973)2 S.C.C. 823 :1973 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1082:A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 301. In that case a complainant paid a sum of Rs.35,000 to the accused who promised to make the said complainant the proprietor of a business to be started by the accused and to render all accounts to him Despite the aforesaid commitment the accused failed to render accounts and the complainant later came to understand that he was not made a proprietor of the concern as promised The Supreme Court took note of the fact that there was nothing in the complaint to show that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the complaint parted with Rs. 35,000 and there was nothing to indicate that the accused induced the appellant to pay the said amount by deceiving him, The Supreme Court, in those circumstances, held that there was no offence of cheating. 7. The complaint in this case is totally silent about the primary ingredient of the offence of cheating as defined in Sec. 415, I.P.C. that the petitioner played any deception on the complainant and induced him either to defraud the society or to make an unlawful gain or to cause unlawful loss to the Society. There is not even a bare allegation in the complaint that at the time when the petitioner promised to present the Ganamela on the Award Night the accused had the intention not to do so. 8. No cognizance of any offence can be taken upon the said complaint Therefore, the action taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum on the said complaint filed by the respondent is liable to be quashed. In the result, I allow this Crl.M.C. and quash all proceedings in C.C.No.40 of 1986 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum. Petition allowed.