In this petition under section 401 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings in CR Case No. 961 of 1984 instituted by Binod Kherkhetari against the proprietor Kamrup Machinery Stores, Gauhati. 2. The facts stated in the complaint are as follows-The complainant Binod Kherkhetari is one of the share holders of M/s. Janajati Udyog Rice Mill of North Lakhimpur and he purchased one 20 HP Raja Machine for a rice mill at a price of Rs. 32.000/- from the firm of the accused at Gauhati. The complainant paid the price. There was an arrangement between the parties that the machine would be sent from Gauhati by the North Lakhimpur Roadways to North Lakhi­mpur. But the accused sent a machine which purported to be a Raja Machine and the complainant took the delivery of the engine on 1.6.83 at North Lakhimpur. But the accused sent a Nilam-Engine of low rate instead of 20 HP Raja-Engine by practising fraud on the complainant. After sometime, the crank shaft of the engine was broken and the said engine was taken to Gauhati on 10.9.83 by a Lorry and the same was kept in the custody of the accused. The accused admitted the guilt and told the complainant that a new engine would be sent. Thereafter, on 1.10.83 one engine was sent by the accused to the complainant and the complainant took packing delivery of the same from Lakhimpur Road Ways and opened the same, but to his utter surprise he found an unfit 16 HP engine of lower price instead of 20 HP engine. Thus the accused has played fraud on the complainant causing thereby tremendous loss. The complaint was filed on 3.9.84 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the first Class North Lakhimpur. On 5.9.84, the learned Magistrate of North Lakhimpur took cognizance of an offence punishable under section 420, IPC and issued processes. Hence this petition for quashing the proceeding on the ground that the learned Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction. 3. Shri C.C. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the North Lakhimpur Court could not take cognizance of the offence, and that the place of trial or enquiry is at Guwahati. 4. Hence this petition for quashing the proceeding on the ground that the learned Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction. 3. Shri C.C. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the North Lakhimpur Court could not take cognizance of the offence, and that the place of trial or enquiry is at Guwahati. 4. The question which arises for consideration is whether the North Lakhimpur Court or Gauhati Court has jurisdiction on the facts and the circumstances of the case. Under section 177, Cr.P.C. every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose legal Jurisdiction it was committed. Section 179 CrPC provides that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local juris­diction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 5. Under section 417, IPC, the ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating are- (i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest induce­ment 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 to do or omit to do anything when he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived ; and (iii) In cases covered by (ii)(b). the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. A reading of the ingredients of cheating and the facts stated above, it is manifest that the offence of cheating, if any was committed at Guwahati from where a 16 HP Engine of low rate instead of 20 HP Raja Engine was sent by the offender, although, it was discovered at North Lakhimpur that a 16 HP Engine of lower price instead of 20 HP Engine was sant. The discovery of the facts at North Lakhimpur could not be said of any consequence which had ensued from the facts of cheating by the accused was at North Lakhimpur. In other words, commission of offence was completed at Guwahati. The discovery of the facts at North Lakhimpur could not be said of any consequence which had ensued from the facts of cheating by the accused was at North Lakhimpur. In other words, commission of offence was completed at Guwahati. The conse­quence as is provided under section 179, CrPC is one of the necessary ingredients of the offence. Since the offence of cheating was committed and completed at Guwahati no consequence was ensued at North Lakbimpur. This view of mine finds supports from the decision in Slate vs. Chunilal, AIR 1965 Pat 103 (OB). For the reasons stated, the North Lakhimpur Court has no jurisdiction to the cognizance and to try the offence. There­fore, the proceedings in CR Case No 961 of 1984 pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, North Lakhimpur are liable to be quashed. I do so accordingly. In the result, the petition is allowed and disposed of.