ORDER The petitioner against whom the respondent has filed a Complaint for an offence under section 418, Indian Penal Code now pending before that Judicial II Class Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras as C.C.No.2032 of 1983 invokes the inherent powers of this Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the above proceedings. 2. The Complaint is on the allegation that the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement for the construction of the ground floor of the premises in 198, M.T.H.Road, Padi, Madras. The agreement was written and was dated. 2.9.1981. The construction was Completed as per the terms of the agreement. Thereafter an oral agreement, was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, wherein it was agreed that the respondent should construct the first floor, balcony etc on certain specified rates which are mentioned in the complaint. The above work was carried out. Out of the total charges of Rs.30, 760 payable to the respondent as per the contract entered into between them, the petitioner paid only a sum of Rs.23, 750. The balance of Rs.7, 010 remained to be paid and ultimately the petitioner refused to pay the same. According to the respondent the petitioner had cheated him and had, therefore committed an offence under section 418, Indian Penal Code. The above Complaint is now sought to be quashed. 3. Thiru S. Shanmughavelayudam, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint does not disclose an offence and that the ingredients necessary to made out an offence under S.418, I.P.C., are not found in the Complaint and that the petitioner had sent reply notice to the respondent, wherein he had stated that no amount was in fact due to the respondent and the matter was therefore, of a purely civil nature and it would be an abuse of the process of the criminal court to allow the Complaint to be proceeded with. 4. Per contra Thiru K.M. Natarajan, learned counsel for the respondent contended that in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint it had been clearly stated that the petitioner was bound by legal contract to protect the interest of the respondent and since he had filed to pay the same, an offence of cheating was committed and other details would only be a matter for evidence only during trial. 5. 5. The question that arises for consideration is whether the inherent powers of this Court could be invoked to quash the above proceedings. 6. S.418, I.P.C., is an aggravated form of S.415, I.P.C. All the allegations that are required for an offence under S.415, I.P.C., have also to be made out for an offence under S.418, I.P.C. Cheating as defined in S.415, I.P.C, occurs when by deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly, the person deceived is induced to deliver any property to any person or to pay or omit to pay anything, which he would not pay or omit, if he were not so deceived and which act or omission cause damage to the other person either in mind, body, reputation or property. This definition clearly indicates that deception should be prevalent and on the basis of that deception, the victim should be made to do something which he would not have otherwise done. 7. Added to these ingredients, the additional element of cheating a person, whose interest one was bound by law or legal contract to protect has to be present for the aggrieved form of cheating under S.418, I.P.C., to be made out. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case the Complaint merely shows that an ordinary agreement had been entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent, had undertaken to construct the building, according to the terms specified and the petitioner had to meet the necessary expenses for the above construction. The written agreement had been carried out. After that there had been an oral agreement regarding the construction of the first floor. It is stated that out of the amount agreed to, a balance of Rs.7, 010 remained to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent and the former had refused to pay the same and that, therefore, the offence of cheating has been committed. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that this constitutes cheating. Even in the Complaint, apart from the bare allegation in Paragraph 8, it is not mentioned anywhere that any fraud or deception, was practised on the respondent, which made him undertake the construction. Apart from that, it is seen that there has been exchange of notices between the parties. Even in the Complaint, apart from the bare allegation in Paragraph 8, it is not mentioned anywhere that any fraud or deception, was practised on the respondent, which made him undertake the construction. Apart from that, it is seen that there has been exchange of notices between the parties. While the respondent claims payment of balance due to him, the petitioner has a counter claim that the construction has not been Completed, according to the specifications agreed to, and that the material used was substandard and that half way, the respondent left the construction forcing the petitioner to engage other to Complete the construction. It is therefore, clear that there is a dispute between both he parties, which out to be settle in a civil court. The Criminal Court is not a forum for such a Complaint. Allowing the Complaint to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the criminal court: The proceedings in C.C.No.2032 of 1983 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate-I, Saidapet, Madras are therefore quashed. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.