Judgment : Accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No. 9695 of 1990 in the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, have filed this petition under Sec.492, Crl.P.C, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are: The respondents have the private complaint against the petitioners for offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The accused firm owes to the complainant Rs. 1,852.15 towards principal and interest for the goods delivered on 27. 1989. The first accused firm issued a cheque on 20.2.1990 for Rs.1,000. The complainant presented the cheque for payment and it was returned on 22. 1990 with remarks "excess arrangement". The complainant sent notice on 14. 1990 and 25. 1990. The accused did not pay. The accused firm intended to cheat complainant’s firm. The act of issuing a cheque without funds amounts to cheating and is liable for punishment under Sec.420, I.P.C. The accused have committed the offence. The accused purposely issued the cheque without sufficient funds with intention to cheat and deliberately deceived and defrauded the complainant and thereby caused grave damage and loss to the complainant’s firm for their commitments with others. Hence the complaint. 3. Mr. Padmanabhan, the learned counsel for Mr.M. Shahjahan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that there are no allegations in the complaint to make out an offence punishable under Sec.420, I.P.C. and hence it is liable to be quashed. For contra, Mr.N. Rajavadivelu the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that in para.6 of the complaint it is alleged that the accused purposely issued a cheque without sufficient funds with intention to cheat and deliberately deceived and defrauded the complainant firm and thereby caused great damage and loss to the complainant’s firm for their commitments with others. These allegations and other allegations do make out the offence punishable under Sec. 420, I.P.C. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival counsels. The relevant allegations are made in paras.5 and 6 of the complaint. These allegations and other allegations do make out the offence punishable under Sec. 420, I.P.C. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival counsels. The relevant allegations are made in paras.5 and 6 of the complaint. It is stated in para.5 as follows: "The act of issuing a cheque without funds to honour amounts to cheating and also liable for punishment under Sec.420, I.P.C. The accused all are jointly and severally liable for prosecution, since they are all got interest over the firm which committed the offence." In para.6, it is stated as follows: "The complainant further states that the accused purposely issued a cheque without sufficient funds in the bank with intention to cheat and deliberately deceive and defraud the complainant firm and thereby caused great damage and loss to the complainant firm for their commitments with others." 5. The two relevant dates are 27. 1989 on which the goods were delivered and 20.2.1990 the cheque was issued. There are no allegations in the complaint that at the time when the cheque was issued, any inducement was made to the complainant. It is also relevant to note that at the time when the goods were received, there was no representation with regard to issuance of a cheque on a much later dated on 20.2.1990. Sec.420, I.P.C. reads as follows: "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or......" Sec. 415, I.P.C. which defines cheating reads as follows: "415. 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 or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". In Oswal Ispat Udyog, represented by its Partner Moolchand Jain v. M/s. Saleem Steel Suppliers, 1991 L.W. (Crl.) 70, Justice Janarthanam has observed as follows: “Thus cheating can be committed in either of the two ways as described in Sec. 415, I.P.C. Deceiving a person is common in both the ways of cheating. A person deceived may be fraudulently or dishonestly induced to deliver any property or to consent to the detention of any property by any person. The person deceived may also be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not have done, if not deceived and which act of his caused or was likely to cause damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property.” The case on hand will not fall under any one of the two ways of cheating, as defined in Sec.415, I.P.C. At the time of issuance of the cheque, the complainant was not induced to deliver any property or to consent to the retention of the property by any person. Neither there is any allegation that at the time of the issuance of the cheque, the complainant was induced to door omit to do anything, which he would not have done, if not deceived. So even if all the allegations made in the complaint are taken as true, offence punishable under Sec.420, I.P.C. is not made out. So it is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, Crl.M.P.No.16420 of 1990 is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 9695 of 1990 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, shall stand quashed.