JUDGMENT - Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, dated 10th June. 1992, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, in Criminal Case No. 417 of 1992 under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard Mr. Soni for the petitioners and Ms. Kamath, learned Addl.P.P. for respondent No. 2. I have also perused the proceedings. It appears that respondent No. 1 Shashikumar Martand Sonawane, filed complaint dated 27th March, 1992, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, against the petitioners, under sections 420 and 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the case of the complainant that he was residing at Solapur and he was doing business of purchasing lottery tickets and that he used to purchase those tickets from petitioner No. 2 M/s. Barad Lottery Agency. Petitioner No. 1- Popatlal H. Jain was the main Agent and Distributor of 'Labh-Laxmi' Lottery Tickets for Maharashtra and he had appointed petitioner No. 2 as his authorised agent for selling of lottery tickets. 3. It also appears that in one of the lots, purchased by the complainant from petitioner No. 2/ accused No. 2, of which the result was to be declared on 21st December, 1991, one ticket was found to be blank i.e. without any number printed on it. It is the case of the complainant that he had full faith in accused No. 2. When it was realised that one ticket, out of the said lot, was blank and without having any number, he made enquiries with petitioner No. 2/ accused No. 2. However, no satisfactory reply could be given by him. Therefore, he felt being cheated and filed the present complaint against both the petitioners. 4. After hearing both the Advocates and after perusing the complaint, it is quite clear that the accused, in no way, were responsible for making respondent No. 1 to purchase the lot of tickets, which was purchased by him. The complainant should not have been so gullible as to accept the tickets given by the petitioners. He being the businessman, ought to have been more alert, cautious and vigilant and it was his duty and responsibility to see, as to whether the tickets were in order. The complainant should not have been so gullible as to accept the tickets given by the petitioners. He being the businessman, ought to have been more alert, cautious and vigilant and it was his duty and responsibility to see, as to whether the tickets were in order. Under the circumstances, no ingredients of offence of cheating are disclosed and the complaint appears to be without any substance. Hence the following order: Writ Petition No. 1139 of 1992 is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). Interim relief dated 20-10-1992 is hereby confirmed. Petition allowed. -----