JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 22-3-1992, passed in a Criminal Complaint under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, filed by the respondent-complainant, whereby the petitioner was summoned. 2. The complaint filed by the respondent-complainant was that the petitioner had started a public school, named, St. Thomas Public School, Ner Chowk and had taken on rent the premises belonging to his sister, namely, Smt. Satya Sen at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,100. The petitioner surrendered the possession, of the premises on 18-4-1991 and issued advance cheque bearing No 293945 dated 26-4-1991 for Rs 10,000 drawn on Central Bank of India, Sundernagar, in lieu of past rent due from her. The cheque was not encashed and the allegations of the respondent complainant are that the petitioner has cheated him, as at the time of issuing the cheque she knew that there was no money in her bank account. The statement of respondent-complainant was also recorded in support of his complaint. 3. Thereafter, on 27-2-1992, the Judicial Magistrate passed the following order (— "27-2-1992—Present Complainant with Counsel Sh. J S Chauhan. I have perused the allegations set forth in the complaint, statement of the witness and also heard the learned Counsel for the complainant In my view, there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the offence under section 420 IPC. Let the accused be summoned for the aforesaid offence for 20-3-1991.” 4 The petitioner did appear before the Judicial Magistrate and submitted personal bond in the sum of Rs 3,000 and a surety in the like amount, as ordered. Later on, when the lady who stood surety for the petitioner, withdrew her surety, the petitioner has deposited a cash amount of Rs. 3,000 on 2-6-1992. Thereafter, she has filed the present petition in which further proceedings in the trial court were stayed on 30-1-1992. 5. In her petition, the petitioner has admitted that she was Principal of St Thomas School, Net Chowk. But according to her, she had hired the premises in question on behalf of St. 3,000 on 2-6-1992. Thereafter, she has filed the present petition in which further proceedings in the trial court were stayed on 30-1-1992. 5. In her petition, the petitioner has admitted that she was Principal of St Thomas School, Net Chowk. But according to her, she had hired the premises in question on behalf of St. Thomas Educational Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, as such there is no privity of contract between her and the owner of the premises and she is not personally liable to pay the rent thereof She has alleged that after the end of academic session March, 1991, she had decided to shift to Delhi and when she was going alongwith her children and household goods, the respondent-complainant with the help of other persons looted her truck and caused substantial loss to her belongings She was stopped at short of Swarghat and brought to Sundernagar, where her two daughters aged 7 years and 11 years were taken as hostages and were kept in the house of Anwari during the night intervening 14th Jane, 1991 and 15th June, 1991. They were released and the petitioner was allowed to proceed to Delhi only when she signed the cheque in question The petitioner does not remember as to in whose favour and for what amount these cheques were got signed from her by the respondent-complainant and others. She had made complaint in writing in this regard in Police Station, Ratti but she does not know the result thereof. 6. In short, the case of the petitioner is that from the averments made in the complaint as well as in the statement on oath of the respondent-complainant, offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, therefore, continuation of the criminal complaint against her is nothing but abuse of the process of the court Even if all the allegations wade in the complaint and statement are accepted as true, these do not amount to criminal liability of cheating and at the most it is only a civil liability for which the respondent-complainant or his sister, the owner of the premises may file civil suit. 7. The respondent-complainant: has filed reply co the petition wherein the averments made in the petition are denied in toto. 7. The respondent-complainant: has filed reply co the petition wherein the averments made in the petition are denied in toto. It is specifically stated that the petitioner is personally responsible for the payment of the rent of the premises as she herself had entered into an agreement with the owner of the premises in her capacity as Secretary of St Thomas Educational Society. A copy of the agreement is brought on record. The facts and circumstances under which the petitioner was made to sign (he cheque in question have been denied and termed as fairy tale by the respondent- complainant. He has placed on record writing dated 17-44991 of the petitioner, wherein she had admitted that rent of the premises for a period of 5-1/2 months amounting to Rs. 11,550 was due and payable by her and an amount of Rs. 10,000 was being paid by a cheque dated 26-4-199L She had also promised to pay the remaining amount and electricity charges within a period of one month. According to respondents complainant, had the story put up by the petitioner been correct, she would have stated about it in her writing. His case is that ingredients of cheating are proved from the fact that when she gave the cheque in question to him she had no money in her bank account. 8. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 9. Before this Court deals with the respective contentions of the parties, let the ingredients of cheating as given in section 415 of the Indian Penal Code be examined. Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is ;— 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 cot 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”. Mere reading of this section shows that ingredients of cheating’ are;— Deception of a person by the accused. Mere reading of this section shows that ingredients of cheating’ are;— Deception of a person by the accused. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person, (i) to deliver any property to any person ; (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property ; (b) intentionally inducing that person 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. Deception is dishonest concealment of facts as provided in the explanation to section 415. 10 Now, it is to be examined whether these ingredients are made out from the complaint as well as the statement made by the respondent complainant. The allegations of cheating are made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint, which are ;— "5. That the accused bad issued the said cheque with malafide dishonest intention and knowingly that she has no amount with the Central Bank of India, Sundernagar branch, to the complainant and when the complainant deposited the said Cheque in his account No. 1074 Savings, at State Bank of Patiala, Sundernagar branch for collection of the said Cheque from the Central Bank of India, but the State Bank of India Patiala informed the complainant that the said cheque cannot be re-collected from the Central Bank, because that cheque has been dishonoured and there is no sufficient amount in the account of accused No 3632 (Savings) 6 That the accused has knowingly and dishonestly cheated the complainant by issuing a bogus cheque having full knowledge that she has no amount in her account and as such has committed an offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code." In his statement in the court, the respondent- complainant has reiterated the same allegations and has not stated any additional fact. 11. From these allegations, it is clear that the cheque in question was issued for the rent of past period and no property was delivered by the respondent-complainant or by his sister or any other person nor their con sent was taken for retaining any property by the petitioner, hence there was no occasion for fraudulent or dishonest inducement of the respondent- complainant by her. It is also not stated by the respondent-complainant what was that act which he had done or omitted to do by the inducement of the petitioner which caused or likely to cause damage or harm to him in any manner. Therefore, this Court holds that the ingredients 2 (a) (i) & (ii) and also 2 (b) as stated hereinabove constituting the offence of cheating, are not made out from the complaint and the statement of respondent-complainant, for which the petitioner could be summoned. 12. Mr. M. L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant has tried to show that ingredient 2 (b), as stated above, is present, inasmuch as, had the petitioner not intentionally induced by giving the cheque in question to the respondent-complainant, he would not have allowed her to proceed to Delhi along with her children and belongings after vacating the premises in question, which has caused him damage of Rs, 10,000 by non-encashment of the cheque. This Court finds this argument of Mr. Sharma not only devoid of any merit but also self-defeating, as respondent-complainant has categorically denied the circumstances under which the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner, as alleged by her. Moreover, if the petitioner in order to get herself and her children free from the hostage of respondent-complainant,, gave the cheque in question to him, will it amount to inducement of a person who was deceived ? Rather it is other way round. It is the respondent complainant who might be guilty of illegal confinement and intimidation and he cannot complain of being deceived or cheated. Further, assuming the petitioner had given post-dated cheque knowingly that she had no amount in her account at that time, it cannot be inferred that she had done it with intention to fraudulently or dishonestly induce the respondent-complainant because neither the respondent-complainant was to deliver any property nor to do or omit to do anything which he would not have done or omit to have done if he was not so deceived, which act had caused or might have caused him any damage. The owner of the premises is entitled to the rent for which the cheque in question was issued and she can realise it in accordance with law. 13. The owner of the premises is entitled to the rent for which the cheque in question was issued and she can realise it in accordance with law. 13. By now it is well settled that issuance of post-dated cheque for past debt or past rent or past liability knowingly that there is no amount in the bank account, is only a breach of promise, and not a criminal liability under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for which a complaint can be filed This has been the consistent view of many other High Courts and this Court draws support from their judgments, a few of which are referred hereto ; Chhota Lal Aggarwal v. The State of Punjab, i987 (1) Ch LR 480 ; Prem Chand and others v. State of Punjab, 1979 Ch LR (Pb and Har) 269 ; Dinesh Saha v. Satnarain Kukara 1979 PLR 33 ; Radha Raman Sahu v. Trtlochan Nanda, I (1991) Banking Gases 447 ; Samuel Raj v The Inspector of Police {Crimes), Valliyur, II (1991) Banking Cases 574 and Vipin Khanna v. D. P. Jain, 1992 (I) Ch LR 289. 14. The result of above discussion is that if the criminal complaint filed against the petitioner is allowed to continue, it will be nothing but abuse of the process of the court, as from the allegations made in the com plaint and in the statement of complainant-respondent the ingredients of the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out. Therefore, the petition is allowed.The criminal complaint No. 24-1/92 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Court No. Ill), Mandi is quashed. Petition allowed.