JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): State has filed this revision petition against the judgment passed by Shri Surinder Singh Thakur, Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh dated 21-6-1994. By means of impugned judgment passed la Criminal Revision 24/93, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the Criminal Revision filed by respondent against the order dated 29-9-1993 framing charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 2. Facts giving rise to this case are that a written complaint was filed by the Branch Manager, Kullu with the Station House Officer, Kullu alleging fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.35,000/- by the respondent from his saving accounts No. 36455, Further grievance against the respondent in the complaint was that he was having a saving bank account No. 36438. Another customer of the Kullu brach of the complaisant bank namely, Shri Vikas Labru was having saving bank account No. 35455 wherein he deposited Rs.35,000/-. This amount, instead of being credited to the recount of said Vikas Labru, was erroneously credited and pasted in the account of the respondent In the account of the respondent there were only credit balance of Rs.489.05 paise which rose to Rs.35,489.05 paise. Out of this sum after having withdrawn Rs.400/- on 264-1991, the respondent is stated to have deposited Rs.4,461/- on 30-8-1991, but again he withdrew Rs.39,000/- which was inclusive of Rs.35,000/-, stated to have been wrongly credited to the account of the respondent. In these circumstances, the prosecution alleged that the respondent being well aware about the fact that this amount doss not belong to him, committed fraud and mis-appropriated the same, therefore, F.I.R. No. 303 of 1991 came to be registered at Police Station, Kullu. After completion of the challan, the respondent was sent to trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, who after being satisfied that there are prime facie materials to proceed against the respondent, ordered framing of charge on 23-9-1993 and the charge was also framed on the said date, which order as well as framing of charge was questioned by the respondent in the criminal revision filed by him before the learned Additional sessions Judge, Kullu, who has passed the impugned order which is questioned by the petitioner-State in the present revision petition. 3. 3. The learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that from the material brought on record, prima facie the challan papers establish the case against the respondent for the offence of cheating, thus punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal code which should have been allowed to be tried and in case after conclusion of the trial the respondent was able to make out a case for acquittal, then die law would have had its own course. According to him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has fallen into error by setting aside the charge framed against the respondent which prima facie is not only illegal but is also improper and, therefore, he urged that the revision petion deserves to be allowed and paise sent back to the trial court for proper trial on the charges framed against the respondent in accordance with law. 4. Shri Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the respondent, has controverted these submissions of Shri M. L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, and has urged that there is no question of any cheating having been committed by his client nor any other circumstance has been made out for interference in the impugned order. In support of his this submission, Shri Jairath referred to the definition of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code and with the aid thereof he further pointed out that there is no question of any inducement having been practised by his client so as to compel a person (Bank) so induced to part with something as required under law. Another argument in the alternative as well as without conceding, pressed into service was that the liability, if any, was purely civil in nature and he further urged that the complainant bank having filed a suit for the recovery of its alleged claim the criminal proceedings initated by it are not sustainable and, therefore, the charge has rightly been set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge below. Lastly, it was urged that the criminal action initiated by the complainant bank is with an oblique motive to extort money out of the respondent without trial in the suit filed by the complainant bank against his client. Lastly, it was urged that the criminal action initiated by the complainant bank is with an oblique motive to extort money out of the respondent without trial in the suit filed by the complainant bank against his client. Thus, pre-empting the decree which is impermissible in law as, according to him, criminal action is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and court and, therefore, on this ground also he prayed for upholding the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge below. 5. In order to properly appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, Section 415 of the Indian Penel Code needs to be referred to which is to the following effect: "S.415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraurdulently or dis-honestly 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 likely to cause dam age or harm to that is person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". 6. In order to succeed, the prosecution is required to show that there was either fraudulent or dis-honest inducement to the person deceived, (bank in the present case) to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentional inducement to the person so deceived to do or omit if he were not so deceived. In the instant case there is no evidence to show that any such act was committed when either the bank or any other person was induced to part with anything by the respondent. On the other hand,! it is admitted case of the complainant that the sum of Rs.35,000/- had been wrongly posted in the saving bank account of the respondent which entry exists M amount deposited on 12/7 in the pass book which is there on the record of i the case. When a further reference is made to the challan filed against the respondent, there is nothing to suggest that at any point of time the respondent) was instrumental in the credit of Rs.35, 000/- in this saving bank account. When a further reference is made to the challan filed against the respondent, there is nothing to suggest that at any point of time the respondent) was instrumental in the credit of Rs.35, 000/- in this saving bank account. In these circumstances no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge below. No. doubt, at this stage minute scrutiny of the challan papers is not to be done for the purpose of framing charge but at the same lime, it has to be borne it mind that there should be enough material which remains un-rebutted or un-challenged, brings home guilt against the respondent. This is the fundamental thing in law which is requried to be condisdered at the time of framing of charge. There is no statement of any of the witnesses or other thing to suggest that it was the petitioner who had induced toy bank official to credit his account with the sum of Rs.35,000/- It seems She possibility of the criminal case having been registered against the respondent was toward of the departmental action because of the negligent handling of the situation by the bank staff cannot be ruled out, more especially when admittedly the complainant bank was initiating civil against the respondent. In no case the respondent can be permitted to be tried for and offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code o& the basis of the materials en record collected by the prosecution during She course of investigition of the case under hand. 7. Faced with this situation, Shri M. L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, was not in a position to advance his submissions any further although he persisted that the respondent is prima facie guilty of having committed the offence in question especially when he had not deposited the sum of Rs.35,000/-, the quesiton of his having withdrawn the sum did not arise and thus, he pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge below could not order the quashing of charge framed against the respondent This argument, though appears to be attractive, yet has been raised simply to be rejected. No other point has been urged in support of this revision petition. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed accordingly.