The question for determination in this Criminal Revision is whether on the allegation made the petitioner can be convicted for cheating” under Section 417 IPC. These are the facts of the case ; In the year 1982 the prosecutrix (Smt. Mrinalini Das) was a girl of 18 years. The petitioner was 22. They were in love for 3 years. On certain evening in the month of January, 1982 other inmates were all out and she was alone in the house. At that moment the petitioner made advances to her by telling that in any case he would marry and take her to his house. That she was afraid but as she believed on his promises she succumbed to his temptation. The petitioner thus had sexual intercourse with her. He told her not to disclose to anybody and thus continued to have the secret sex affairs also on subsequent occasions. This made her pregnant. When her pregnancy reached an advanced stage she disclosed the fact. But by that time petitioner denied and thereafter he did not want to meet her. Eventually she filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Tezpur for “cheating.” During the proceedings of the case she delivered a female child. 3. Before the Court also the petitioner denied the allegation. On the evidence the learned Judicial Magistrate found that the petitioner had the sexual intercourse by giving false promises to many and therefore he committed the offence of cheating as denned under Section 415 IPC. On this finding he convicted the petitioner under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to R.F. for 6 months and to a fine of Rs. 750/-in default to R.I. for one month more. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Tezpur, upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision. 4. No one has appeared to argue for the petitioner when the case was called for hearing. Mr. K. Sarma learned Advocate appearing for the prosecutrix (respondent No. 2) strongly supported the conviction and Mrs. K. Deka the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam (respondent No. 1 ) adopted his contentions. As I was unable to accept the contentions I requested Mr. P. Pathak to appear for the petitioner. The term “cheating” is defined in Section 415 IPC, which reads as follows : "415. K. Deka the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam (respondent No. 1 ) adopted his contentions. As I was unable to accept the contentions I requested Mr. P. Pathak to appear for the petitioner. The term “cheating” is defined in Section 415 IPC, which reads as follows : "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 that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat." Explanation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.”“ 5. Mr. Sarma stated that the section can be divided into two parts. According to him delivery of property by a person deceived is necessary only under the first part ; and under the second part cheating can be committed even without delivery of property. He submitted that in this case the prosecutrix would not have surrendered to the petitioner if she was not deceived and that as the prosecutrix had suffered damage or harm in body, mind and reputation due to the deception, the petitioner has clearly committed the offence of cheating under the second part of the section. On this premises he maintained that the conviction was just and proper. In support of this contention he cited a decision of Madras High Court in “State vs. Sant Parkash Sahni and Ors. “, 1977 Crl, L. J. (NOC) 219. In this decision the case against the accused was that he played deception and fraudulently and dishonestly induced the Bank of Tokyo, Bombay to open letters of credit in order to earn foreign exchange by making it appear that the letters of credit were for the purpose of importing goat skins to the value shown. It was held hat if these; facts were established to make out the offence of cheating, there need not necessarily be delivery of property ; because it was enough if damage or harm was caused or was likely to be caused in body, mind, reputation or property. It was held hat if these; facts were established to make out the offence of cheating, there need not necessarily be delivery of property ; because it was enough if damage or harm was caused or was likely to be caused in body, mind, reputation or property. This decision clearly show that although there was no delivery of property the decep­tion must be in relation to a property. The decision therefore cannot help Mr. Sarma. Mr. Pathak has stated that in the present case the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for cheating under the penal law and that the remedy of the prosecutrix is only to apply for award of main­tenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I think so. 6. Sections 415/417 IPC come under Chapter-XVII :-”OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY.” Therefore, in order to bring the case even under the later part of the section, deception must be in relation to property. The expression “to do “or omit to do any thing in Sec. 415 apply to a person who is deceived in relation to property though the property may or may not be delivered. It does not apply to the case of the women who is made to surrender her chastity to a man who deceived her. 7. For the reasons which I have stated above, (the petitioner cannot be convicted under Section 417 IPC. The revision is allowed and the conviction sentence passed against the petitioner are set aside. It would be open to the prosecutrix to apply for grant of maintenance K under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,; and if such an P application is made, the Court will dispose it on merits.