O. P. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the Criminal Complaint No. 439/81 (532/82), under Sections 420 and 120b I. P. C. pending in the Court of VIIth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Aligarh. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent Ram Charan filed a complaint against the applicant and his family members, alleging that the applicant has a brother named Deen Dayal who was of marriageable age and the respondent had a marriageable daughter darned Km. Chandrawati. With the intervention of accused No. 4 Dr. Ved Prakash the respondent fixed the marriage of his daughter with Deen Dayal. On 19th May, 1981 K. L. Ramaiya, R. D. Ramaiya, Deen Dayal Ramaiya and Dr. Ved Prakash came to the house of respondent Ram Charan at Aligarh and they approved the girl. The respondent (complainant) paid some money to accused Nos. 1 to 4 which is customarily given at the time of engagement. On 2nd June, 1981 K. L. Ramaiya and accused Nos. 1 to 8 came to the house of the complainant and Goad Ceremony was performed and again some customary monetary presents were given to the accused persons. On 11tjuly, 1981 the complainant went to Jhansi for fixing the date of marriage and he was told by the neighbours that Deen Dayals marriage party has gone to Delhi. The complainant went to Delhi where he came to know that on 10th July, 1981 Deen Dayal has married Usha Devi Gupta. It was said by the complainat that accused 1 to 8 had fixed the marriage of Deen Dayal with Usha Devi much prior to 17th May, 1981 and they intentionally deceived the complainant ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate recorded the statements of Ram Charan and his witnesses namely Km. Vimla Banshal and Jugal Bihari Lal. After recording the evidence the Magistrate passed the summoning ordered being aggrieved against the same this petition has been filed by accused No. 1 K. L. Ramaiya. Notice was issued to respondent Ram Charan who has filed a counter affidavit on 23/1/1993. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I am satisfied that even if the contents of the complaint are assumed to be true, no case under Section 420 I. P. C. is made out. Notice was issued to respondent Ram Charan who has filed a counter affidavit on 23/1/1993. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I am satisfied that even if the contents of the complaint are assumed to be true, no case under Section 420 I. P. C. is made out. For the commission of an offence under Section 420 I. P. C. it must be established that the accused made a false representation to the complainant which he believed to be true and he acted on the same which caused pecuniary loss to the complainant and gain to the accused. This is a simple case of breach of contract of marriage. According to the complaint, (Annexure 1 to the petition,) accused No. 4 told the complainant that he has a brother-in-law who is of marriageable age and is employed as a Station Master. It is not said by the complainant that accused No. 4 did not have a marriageable brother-in-law or that he was not employed as a Station Master. On 17th May, 1981 the complainant approved the boy (Deen Dayal) and invited the accused party to come to Aligarh. The accused party came on 19th May, 1981 and approved the girl and customary presents were given. Thereafter on 11th July, 1981 the complainant came to know that the Barat of Deen Dayal has already left for Delhi and that he has married another girl Usha Devi at Delhi on 10th July, 1981. ( 5 ) THE crux of the matter is that whether the accused had already fixed the marriage of Deen Dayal with Usha Devi prior to l7thmay, 1981 and they deliberately misled the complainant. There is absolutely no material on record to come to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage of Deen Dayal was fixed with Usha Devi prior to 17. 5. 1981. The witnesses Km. Vimla Banshal and Jugal Bihari Lal has simply stated that the accused party came to Aligarh and were received at the station and the customary monetary presents were given to them. Jugal Bihari Lal has further stated that he accompanied the complainant to Jhansi on 11th July, 1981 and, therefore, it was revealed that Deen Dayals Barat has already left for Delhi. They went to Delhi and came to know that the marriage has already taken place. Jugal Bihari Lal has further stated that he accompanied the complainant to Jhansi on 11th July, 1981 and, therefore, it was revealed that Deen Dayals Barat has already left for Delhi. They went to Delhi and came to know that the marriage has already taken place. Therefore, it is apparent from the complaint that it is a simple case of breach of contract and the ingredients of the offence of cheating are not established even prima facie. The learned Counsel for the complainant has relied upon 1989 A. W. C. 786, Om Prakash v. Rudramani Pandey, in which it has been held that if there is prima facie evidence the High Court should not interfere in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. T There can be no dispute about the principle laid down in this authority but on the facts and circumstances of the case, which has been discussed above, I hold that no offence under Section 420 I. P. C. is made out even if the contents of the complaint are assumed to be true. ( 6 ) BEFORE parting with the case it may also be mentioned that the learned Counsel for the applicant has made a statement at the bar that the applicant-accused K. L. Ramaiya is prepared to refund the amount which was given to the accused persons as Neg. In view of the above discussion the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is allowed and the proceedings in the Complaint Case No. 439/81 (530/82) pending in the Court ofvllth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Aligarh which were stayed by order of this Court dated 30th July, 1982 are hereby quashed. The VIIth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Afigarh may be informed accordingly. Petition allowed. .