Judgment : N. D. PATNAIK, J. 1. THIS petition is filed by the petitioner who is accused in CC No. 69/88 on the file of the 7th Judicial I Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, to quash the proceedings against him The complaint has been filed by the 2nd respondent who is the brother of the accused. The allegations in the complaint are that when the petitioner was in need of money on account of his suspension from Government service he requested his brother the complainant to give him some money and therefore the complainant gave him various amounts and also gave him some gold jewellery with the understanding that they should be returned to him but the petitioner had failed to return and on account of that the complainant suffered loss of Rs. 18,000/ -. The complaint is filed under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 2. THE learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contended that the complainant gave him the money out of love and affection and it is not intended to be refunded to the complainant and at any rate it is only a question of civil liability but no offence is committed even if the petitioner is considered to be a debtor and failed to discharge his debt. 3. SECTION 405 of the IPC reads that whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person to do so, commits criminal breach of trust. 4. IN this case as far as the payment of money its concerned, the parties may be in the relationship of debtor and creditor and therefore no criminal offence might have been committed but as far as jewellery is concerned, the allegation of the complainant is that the complainant gave it to the accused with a specific direction that it shall be returned to him in the same condition within a period of one month but he had failed to do so. Therefore, it amounts to misappropriation if the allegation is proved on evidence. Therefore, it amounts to misappropriation if the allegation is proved on evidence. There-fore, the offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. 5. AS far as the offence of cheating is concerned Sec. 415 reads 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 could not do or omit if he were not so decided, 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. 6. IN this case the allegation is that the accused represented that he was in need of money and therefore the complainant gave the money and gold article. Therefore, the allegations do not make out any offence of deceit as enumerated in Sec. 415 IPC. So, the offence of cheating is not made out on the allegations made in the complaint. 7. THE complaint is quashed as far as the offence of cheating is concerned but the trial court can proceed with the trial in accordance with law for the offence under Section 406. P. C. With that direction the petition is dismissed.