Judgment L.P.N.SHAHDEO, J. 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the entire criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners under Sec. 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code in the following circumstances. 2. It appears that there are three petitioners, petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of that firm. The firm carries on wholesale business in food grains at Supaul, in the district of Saharsa, and they have wholesale licence for the same. It is also a registered firm under the Bihar Sales Tax Laws. 3. That the representative of the complaint-opposite party No. 2 on 19-7-1977 had purchased 121 bags of Maize from the petitioner firm and under the provision of the Bihar Sales Tax Laws, he had also charged Rs. 453.12 paise as sales tax, apart from sale value of the consignment. The sales tax was paid by the opposite party No.2 on the first point of transaction. The petitioner firm had given a declaration as prescribed in form No. IX C to the representative of opposite party No.2 showing that the petitioners held collected sales tax as aforesaid in that transaction. It is claimed that the sales tax realised from the opposite party No. 2 was duly deposited in the Government treasury along with other sales tax collected by the petitioners firm. 4. The opposite party No.2 had submitted the declaration form as prescribed in form No. IX-C and claimed exemption from payment of sales tax, but the Sales Tax Officer rejected that declaration form and assessed sales-tax along with penalty which the opposite party No.2, had to pay. It is claimed that inspite of the demand by the opposite party No.2 the petitioners neither returned the sale-tax so collected from him nor deposited the same in the Government treasury and as such they had committed an offence under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. With these allegations, a complaint petition was filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2, and after regular enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the cognizance of the offence was taken and processes were issued, which are being assailed of in this application. 6. Mr. C.C. Bharuka, Sr. 5. With these allegations, a complaint petition was filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2, and after regular enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the cognizance of the offence was taken and processes were issued, which are being assailed of in this application. 6. Mr. C.C. Bharuka, Sr. Advocate, has submitted that no prima facie case under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners, and as such the criminal prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the Court. It was also contended that the realisation of sales tax on the first point of transaction is necessary under the Bihar Sales Tax Laws and Rules arid realisation of such sales tax by the petitioners and depositing the same in the Government treasury, the petitioners had not committed any offence of cheating in doing so. It was lastly submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the declaration form may be rejected on any technical ground and the remedy of the petitioners lay in preferring an appeal under the Bihar Sales Tax Laws for which sanction of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is necessary, and as such the petitioners instead of taking step under the appropriate laws, has unnecessarily filed this complaint case in order to harass and humiliate the petitioners. 7. The main question for determination is as to whether any case of cheating on the basis of the allegation levelled against the petitioners is made out or not. "Cheating" is defined under Sec. 415 of the Indian Penal Code, which indicates that 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. This shows that dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is a necessary ingredient of cheating. 8. In this case, on the admitted facts, the petitioners had realised the sales tax on the transaction entered into between the parties with regard to the sale of maize by the petitioners to the complainant. This shows that dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is a necessary ingredient of cheating. 8. In this case, on the admitted facts, the petitioners had realised the sales tax on the transaction entered into between the parties with regard to the sale of maize by the petitioners to the complainant. It is claimed that the sales-tax so realised was also deposited. In order to sustain his argument, he referred to annexure-1, which indicates that the petitioners had paid the sales tax during the relevant period along with other transaction. The mere fact that the Sales Tax Officer has not accepted the declaration form as prescribed in Form No. IX C, issued by the petitioners, is not sufficient to constitute an offence of cheating. This responsibility of the petitioners was to pay the sales-tax so realised and in case of default in depositing the same, it is for the Sides Tax Authorities to realise it or to take necessary step against the firm for committing such an offence under the Bihar Sales Tax Laws. In this case, even if the petitioners had not deposited the sales-tax so realised from the opposited party No.2, he was liable for prosecution under the sales-tax laws, and for which an offence of cheating cannot be said to be made out. There is no fact or circumstance to show that the petitioners had dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction and only to cause wrongful harm to the opposited party No.2, they had not deposited it in the treasury. In that event, it was the liability of the petitioners to the sales tax authorities, who could-have taken action against them. But the petitioners cannot be said to have committed an offence of cheating for such default. 9. So far their parts are concerned, the petitioners had already issued declaration in the prescribed Form No. IXC and had discharged their responsibility by doing so. If the Sales Tax Officer had not accepted that form on some technical ground or on any other ground, the opposite party No.2 should have preferred an appeal as provided under the Bihar Sales Tax Laws and Rules and should not have rushed to the criminal Court for attempting to show that a case of cheating is made out against the petitioners, although, no such case appears to have made out. The opposite party No. 2 has not stated as to under that circumstance the prescribed declaration form was rejected and under what circumstance, he had not preferred any appeal. Duty cast upon the petitioners stands sufficiently discharged once the declaration form was issued to the opposite party No.2. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners had dishonest intention at the very beginning and they had committed offence of cheating. 10. To this case, no false representation was made out with necessary intention. My considered view on the basis of the admitted fact, is that no case of cheating, on the basis of the allegation made out in the complaint petition, is made out against the petitioners and, therefore, this type of criminal prosecution cannot sustain in law and amounts to an abuse of the process of the, Court. 11. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this application is allowed. The order of taking cognizance and the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners are hereby quashed.