Judgment N. K. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order passed by the Addi. Sessions Judge, Nagour dated 12. 9. 1983 and the order of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu dated 27. 6. 1983. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this petition are that one Prahalad Rai filed a complaint on 10. 10. 1982 at P. S. Ladnu alleging that Madanlal had promised him to send for earning to Italy and petitioner had taken Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant. It was also alleged that the petitioner admitted that due to unavoidable reasons he could not send the complainant to Italy and promised to return Rs. 15,000/- on demand. And a Ikrarnama was executed to this effect duly signed by him before two witnesses. On this a case u/s. 420 I. P. C. was registered against the petitioner and was challanged before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ladnu who framed charge against him u/s. 420 I. P. C. on 27. 6. 1983. Being aggrieved the accused petitioner filed a revision before the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Nagaur which was dismissed on 12. 9. 1983. Hence the petitioner has preferred this petition. ( 3 ) MR. B. N. Kalla, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence of cheating has been established and the complainant at the most he can seek remedy of filing civil suit. He has placed reliance on Hariprasad v. Bishnu Kumar. ( 4 ) MR. S. M. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this petition and submitted that as per the complaint, it is a clear case of cheating. ( 5 ) I have heard Mr. B. N. Kalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. M. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. ( 6 ) THE offence of cheating has been defined in Sec. 415, IPC as under and the offence is punishable u/s. 420, IPC. ( 5 ) I have heard Mr. B. N. Kalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. M. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. ( 6 ) THE offence of cheating has been defined in Sec. 415, IPC as under and the offence is punishable u/s. 420, IPC. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fradulently 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 to do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage to harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat. ( 7 ) SO far as an offence punishable u/s. 420, I. P. C. is concerned, the two essential ingredients are deceitful representation and the delivery of property in consequence thereof. It is necessary to establish that the representation was false to the knowledge of the maker at the time it was made and if the representation consists of a promise it must be established that the intention of the promisor was dishonest at the time of making of the promise. Such an intention cannot be inferred from mere fact that the promisor could subsequently fulfil promise. ( 8 ) IN Hariprasad v. Bishun Kumar (supra), the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to the respondent on the basis of the statement of the respondents that they would start a transport business and that the appellant went to Calcutta, he found that the respondents were doing transport business but the appellant was not shown as the proprietor of the business and that the respondents had failed to render the accounts of the said business to the appellant and had also failed to refund the money advanced by the appellant. The sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 420, I. P. C. against the respondent but High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, quashed the criminal proceedings on the view that the case of the appellant was based upon contract, and a mere breach of contract could give rise to criminal prosecution and that the appellant had a remedy in the Civil Court The Supreme Court affirmed the said decision of the High Court and has observed as under: There is nothing in the complaint to show that the respondents had dishonest or fradulent intention at the time the appellant parted with Rs. 35,000/ -. There is also nothing to indicate thatthe respondents induced the appellant to pay them Rs. 35,000/- by deceiving him. It is further not the case of the appellant that a representation was made by the respondents to him at or before the time he paid the money to them and that at the time the representation was made, the respondents knew the same to be false. The fact that the respondents subsequently did not abide by their commitment that they would show the appellant to be the proprietor of Drang Transport Corporation and would also render accounts to him in the month December might create civil liability for them, but this fact would net be sufficient to fasten criminal liability on the respondents for the offence of cheating. ( 9 ) IN the instant case a perusal of the complaint and other papers will show that all that is mentioned that the accused Madanlal took Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant for sending him for earning to Italy. However, the accused petitioner could not send the complainant to Italy and there is no averment in the complaint that the accused deceived the complainant by dishonestly or fradulently inducing him. As per agreement dated 8. 10. 1983 on record in which it has been mentioned that despite his efforts, he took him to other cities and due to unavoidable circumstances he could not be taken to Italy and instead of Italy he was taken to Bulgaria and returned back. In the agreement, it was also mentioned that though there was loss of earning to Prahalad Rai but he will return the amount of Rs. 15,000/- on demand. In the agreement, it was also mentioned that though there was loss of earning to Prahalad Rai but he will return the amount of Rs. 15,000/- on demand. The I krarnama was prepared by the petitioner and duly signed by the petitioner in the presence of witnesses Nanu and Gaurishanker. In view of the agreement dated 3. 10. 1983 and as the petitioner has not disclosed that he was deceived at the time of representation for taking him to Italy. It appears to be a case of civil nature and no criminal offence u/s. 420, LP. C. prima facie is made out. Under these circumstances, if proceedings are allowed to continue it will amounts to abuse of the process of the court and to secure ends of justice the proceedings deserves to be quashed. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition is accepted and the charge framed u/s. 420 and proceedings pending against the accused-petitioner in case No. 161/82 State v. Madanlalin the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu is hereby set aside. Petition allowed.