Honble SINGH, J. – Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsels for non-petitioner No. 2. (2). A perusal of the record of the lower Court shows that non- petitioner No.2 Bhanwar Singh filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur against three persons, namely, Rakesh Roshan, Dhiru Bhai and Praveen Bhai alleging the commission of offences punishable under Secs. 418 & 420 I.P.C. (3). According to the averments made in the complaint the complainant Bhanwar Singh is the resident of Sumerpur. He owns cinema hall known as ``Mahaveer Cinema in which films are exhibited. Rakesh Roshan accused No. 1 is the producer of the films and the prints of the films are sold by him to the distribu- tors who in turn distribute the films throughout the country. Dhiru Bhai accused No. 2 and Praveen Bhai accused No.3 are alleged to be the persons who purchased the video rights of the films produced by accused No.1. According to the allegations made by the complainant accused No. 1 produced film known as ``Karan-Arjun. An advertisement was issued in film magazine and also in film posters that the right to prepare video cassette of above mentioned film had not been sold to anyone and a reward of Rs. one lakh was offered to the person who would give information at the nearest police station about the exhibition of video cassette of above named film. It was further alleged in the complaint that in pursuance of the advertisement issued by accused No.1 the complainant took pains to find out if any video cassette of above named film was exhibited illegally. On 24.2.1995 the complainant Bhanwar Singh lodged first information report at police station Sheoganj. In his report he alleged that video cassette of the films ``Karan-Arjun and ``Hum Aapke Hai Kaun were in possession of M/s. Anand Video Centre, Sheoganj. In the first information report it was further alleged that Anand Video Centre was distributing video cassettes of above named film to persons on hire. (4). It was further alleged that on the basis of the first information report lodged by complainant Bhanwar Singh the police registered a criminal case No. 44/95. During investigation a search was conducted and during search video cassette of the film ``Karan- Arjun was recovered from the possession of Khushal and Basant Kumar. (4). It was further alleged that on the basis of the first information report lodged by complainant Bhanwar Singh the police registered a criminal case No. 44/95. During investigation a search was conducted and during search video cassette of the film ``Karan- Arjun was recovered from the possession of Khushal and Basant Kumar. After completing investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. against the persons from whose possession video cassette has been recovered. (5). In the complaint filed by Bhanwar Singh it was further alleged that after the registration of the case at police station the complainant sent registered notices to the accused persons and asked them to pay the reward of Rs. one lakh which was offered through their advertisement. The notices which were sent by registered post were returned unserved because the addressee refused to take the delivery of the notices. On 12.9.1995 the complainant sent registered notices through his counsel. Accused No. 1 sent a reply to the notice and accused Nos 2 and 3 did not send any reply to the notice. The reward of Rs. one lakh was not paid to the complainant Bhanwar Singh . The complainant Bhanwar Singh filed the complaint alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 418 and 420 I.P.C. and prayed that suitable action be taken against all the three accused persons against whom complaint have been filed. (6). After conducting inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Judicial Magistrate found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused person in respect of offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 I.P.C. and directed issue of bailable warrants to compel their attendance. (7). Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20.1.1996 Dhiru Bhai filed this peti- tion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and prayed that proceedings initiated against him be quashed. (8). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case the facts alleged by the complainant in his complaint do not constitute any offence punishable under Sections 418 and 420 I.P.C. and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate was not legally empowered to take cognizance of above mentioned offences. (8). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case the facts alleged by the complainant in his complaint do not constitute any offence punishable under Sections 418 and 420 I.P.C. and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate was not legally empowered to take cognizance of above mentioned offences. On the other hand the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor have submitted that the allegations made by non-petitioner No. 2 are correct and the act of the petitioner amounts to cheating punishable under Section 417 I.P.C., because by making false representation by means of pub- lic advertisements and by film pamphlet, that a reward of Rs. one lakh will be given to person who will give information at the police station about the unlawful possession of the video cassette of the film ``Karan-Arjun, the accused petitioner induced the complainant to make effort for the purpose of finding out who were in possession of the video cassetee of the film ``Karan- Arjun and that by making the efforts for the above purpose the filing the first information report at the police station the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2 was induced to perform some such acts as was likely to cause damage or harm to him in body or mind, in as much as by filing the first information report, the complainant not only incurred the wrath of the accused from whose possession video cassette has been found, he further incurred the liability to be prosecuted for making a false complaint if the allegations made by him in the first information report were proved to be untrue. (9). Cheating has been defined in Section 415 I.P.C. which reads as under : ``Section 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 damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to ``cheat. (10). (10). A bare perusal of Section 415 I.P.C. shows that while under the first part of this Section the delivery of any property by the person who is deceived to another person is necessary, under the second part delivery of property is not necessary. It is sufficient to prove that the person who was deceived was induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not have done or omitted if he was not so deceived, and which act or omission was likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. (11). In the instant case there is no dispute about it that a reward of Rs. one lakh was offered by means of advertisement, to the person who would give information to the police about the illegal possession of the video cassette of the film ``Karan-Arjun. The above mentioned reward of Rs. one lakh was offered by Time Video. The petitioner is alleged to be the distributor of film produced under the banner of Film Kraft and, therefore, prima facie it is proved that the petitioner had offered to pay the reward of Rs. one lakh to the person who would give information about the unlawful possession of video cassette of film ``Karan-Arjun. (12). The allegations made in the complaint and the oral as well as documentary evidence shows that the complainant lodged the first information report at police station stating there in that Anand Video Center was in unlawful possession of video cassettes of film ``Karan-Arjun and ``Hum Aapke Hai Kaun and that the cassettes were being sold and given on hire. It is also prima facie proved by the documentary as well as oral evidence that on the basis of the first information report given by the complainant the police registered criminal case No. 44/95 under Sections 52 (1) (a), 63 and 68-A of the Copy Right Act and during investigation, con- ducted a search of the premises of M/s. Anand Video Centre. On conducting search of the above mentioned premises two video cassettes of the film ``Karan-Arjun and ``Hum Aapke Hai Kaun were recovered from Basant Kumar who could not produce any licence to purchase the same. It is also prima facie established that after completing investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet in the Court against Basant Kumar and Khushal. (13). On conducting search of the above mentioned premises two video cassettes of the film ``Karan-Arjun and ``Hum Aapke Hai Kaun were recovered from Basant Kumar who could not produce any licence to purchase the same. It is also prima facie established that after completing investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet in the Court against Basant Kumar and Khushal. (13). The allegations contained in the complaint and the evidence produced during inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. further shows that complainant sent registered notices to the accused persons demanding price of Rs. one lakh which had been offered by means of advertisements mentioned above. The notices were refused and then complainant sent notices through his counsel to the accused persons and one of the accused Rakesh Roshan sent reply to the notice through his counsel. The reply dated 14.10.1995 sent by Ashok M. Saraogi, Advocate for accused Rakesh Roshan, shows that the accused Rakesh Roshan totally denied liability of paying reward of Rs. one lakh and made allegations against complainant that he himself is indulging in black mail. Accused Rakesh Roshan has not filed any petition. Petitioner Dhiru Bhai did not reply to the notice which was sent by the complainant. The allegation is that reward of Rs. one lakh was not paid as was promised by advertisements. (14). The learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 has submitted that the offer to pay Rs. one lakh as reward to the person who would give information about unlawful possession of video cassette was not a sincere promise and was in fact a false representation offered with a view to induce innocent persons to make efforts even at the cost of harm to their body and mind, to find out whether any person was in unlawful possession of video cassette and to report about that person to the police and as such, it is prima facie established that deception had been played by the petitioner on the non-petitioner No. 2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 that if the above mentioned reward would not have been offered, non- petitioner No. 2 would not have taken any pains to find out who was unlawfully dealing in the video cassettes of film of ``Karan- Arjun nor there was any necessity to file any report at the police station against Anand Video Centre. In short the submission of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 is that whatever action was taken by non-petitioner No. 2 by way of finding out that Anand Video Centre was unlawfully dealing in video cassette of the film ``Karan-Arjun and that he reported the matter to the police by submitting first information report, was done as consequence of inducement offered by accused petitioner through the advertisements. It is further submitted that the action taken by non-petitioner No. 2 was such as was likely to cause harm to the body and mind of non-petitioner No. 2 because such action necessarily involves efforts to detect as to who was possessing, exhibiting or distributing on hire the video cassette of the film ``Karan-Arjun and this action was likely to have caused harm to non-petitioner No. 2 by making him incur expenses by doing detective work and by incurring the risk involved in taking action against the persons who were indulging in unlawful trade of video cassette. In other words the submission made by non-petitioner No. 2 is that the action taken by non- petitioner No. 2 in pursuance of the inducement given by advertisements was such as was likely to cause harm or damage to the body or mind of non-petitioner No. 2 and, therefore, all the ingredients of offence of cheating defined in Section 415 I.P.C. are made out by the allegations contained in the complaint and the evidence produced during inquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. (15). After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find sufficient force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 (16). After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find sufficient force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 (16). Under the first part of Section 415 I.P.C. it is necessary that some property should have been delivered by the person who was deceived to any other person as a result of deception practised upon him but under the second part of Section 415 I.P.C. delivery of any property by the person who is deceived is not necessary to attract second part of Section 415 I.P.C. It is sufficient to show that the person who was deceived was induced to do anything or or to omit the doing of anything which he would not have done or omitted if he was not deceived and that his act or omission was such as was likely to cause damage or harm to that persons body, mind or reputation. The word damage or harm as used in Section 415 I.P.C. has not been defined anywhere. However, having regard to the fact that in civilised human society the service which may be rendered by any human being to another by doing work, not only fetches value but is given as much of importance as the property, it would be proper to say that if any person is induced, by making false representation to him, to render service to another person, which he would not have rendered if he was not deceived, the provisions of Section 415 I.P.C. may be attracted, if therendering of such service by the person who was deceived may be said to have resul- ted in some damage or harm to that person in body or in mind. (17). There may be cases where the doing of a job may not result in any damage or harm to that person in body or mind. In such cases Section 415 I.P.C. will not be attracted; but there may be cases where the service which a person is induced to render by making false representation before him, is such as is likely to cause damage or harm to that persons body or mind. In such cases Section 415 I.P.C. will not be attracted; but there may be cases where the service which a person is induced to render by making false representation before him, is such as is likely to cause damage or harm to that persons body or mind. For instance if a man is asked to do a job which cannot be done easily but requires putting in of labour, attention and also involves taking of pains and is visited by certain risk which may be necessary to do the job, and deliberate effort is required for performing the job and the risk attending the performance of job are such which are likely to cause damage or harm to the person doing the job, then in my humble opinion, there is no reason why the cases of this kind should not be covered by Section 415 I.P.C., if a man is induced to do the job of this kind by making false representation before him. (18). Keeping in view the provision of Section 415 I.P.C. it may be said that the nature of the work which non-petitioner No. 2 performed in consequence of the inducement made by the advertisement was such as was likely to cause harm or damage to the body or mind of non-petitioner No. 2 in view of this, the ingredients of Section 415 I.P.C. are prima facie made out and the contention that no offence was made out does not appear to be correct. (19). For reasons mentioned above the prayer for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted at this stage. It would be proper if the various submissions against the taking of cognizance of against the commencement of trial are made before the learned Judicial Magistrate at appropriate stage. (20). With above observations the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.