JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J. - By means of this petition, the petitioner has come up to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in case No. 874 of 1979 pending in the court of Magistrate I Class, Aligarh under Section 417 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Sri S.V. Goswami has stated that his client has taken away the brief from him and he has no instruction in the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint is filed for punishment for cheating under Section 417 IPC and according to him the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case of cheating which is one of the essential ingredients under Section 417 IPC. The cheating is defined under Section 415 IPC, which is quoted hereunder: "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'." 4. According to the case in the complaint, Suresh Chand Bansal the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Suresh and Co., at Agra and is distributor of medicines. Nirmal Kumar Pandey who is co-accused is said to be the representative of the said Firm at the relevant time. Sometime in June, 1978, Sri Pandey placed some orders for certain medicines which were the product of Company Acron. The applicant wanted to appoint the complainant Sri Vishwa Ranjan as his stockist of Acros product for Aligarh and, inter alia, assured the complainant that he would be taking all the unsold goods back on cash payment. On these representations of the accused, the complainant was induced to accept the stockist-ship and orders for a large quantity of Acron's product and thereby invested big amount. The Acron product could not capture the market and so the complainant did not want to continue as stockist any more and he informed the accused person to take back the unsold medicines and to make the payment therefor. The Acron product could not capture the market and so the complainant did not want to continue as stockist any more and he informed the accused person to take back the unsold medicines and to make the payment therefor. The accused instead of making payment of the complainant avoided even the reply of the complainant's letter in the beginning and when notice was sent through a lawyer, the accused denied the fact of appointing the complainant as stockist. Efforts resulted in fatality as the accused had no intention to repay the unsold medicines and thus by committing fraud, caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 8,000/-to the complainant. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of pure and simple civil liability as no ingredient of cheating is made out. There was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement to the complainant for doing anything, or for omitting to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he was not deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 6. In the present case, it is the case of the complainant that there was a Firm Acron product and in which he became the stockist but since the product could not capture the market and also because the complainant did not want to continue as stockist any more, he complained the accused persons to take the unsold medicines back and make payment therefor. So the ultimate liability is regarding the payment of the money for the goods remained unsold when the complainant himself terminated the agency. Accordingly, since it is a case of pure and civil liability, the proceedings in case No. 874 of 1979 (Vishwa Ranjan v. Suresh Chand and others) initiated L-30 on the basis of the complaint pending in the Court of Magistrate I Class Aligarh under Section 417 IPC are hereby quashed. 7. The petition is allowed.