C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) ORDER :since these two petitions arise out of the same proceedings, they are being disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 1083 of 2000 is filed by A2 and Criminal Petition No. 1008 of 2001 is filed by A1, A3 to A6 in CC no. 86 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the xvii Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. ( 3 ) 1st respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, alleging that he served in the erstwhile Nizam Army as Guard in Mysaram Regiment and became a close confident of HEH the VII Nizam and so a close relative of the Nizam was given in marriage to him. At the time of his marriage with a relative of HEH the nizam, the Nizam gifted many gold ornaments to his wife, and in pursuance of the promise to look after him and his wife the-the Nizam provided all facilities that would normally be extended to the heirs of the royal family, by issuing Firmans, which were published in Shiraz Daily Bulletin published from the Office of the HEH the nizam. Subsequently HEH the VIII Nizam created a Khanajada Trust for the welfare of the people who are loyal to him and who served him as soldiers, wherein he [petitioner] was placed as Khanajada No. 1. The gold ornaments and other jewellery presented to him and his wife were preserved and kept in safe custody in a separate Black box. Finnan dated 15-7-1953 also shows that ornaments have been preserved and kept in safe custody in a separate Black box. After the death of HEH the VII nizam, he made requests and representations to the successors of the Nizam to return the above said ornaments. Petitioner in Criminal petition No. 1083 of 2000 having admitted the custody of the jewellery, and having promised to return the ornaments, went on postponing the return of the jewellery on one pretext or the other, and is trying to sell away the same . Representations made to the Nizam Trust to provide facilities which were extended by the HEH the VII Nizam to him, fell to deaf-ear and no such facilitates are being extended to him, and so petitioners are liable to be punished under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Representations made to the Nizam Trust to provide facilities which were extended by the HEH the VII Nizam to him, fell to deaf-ear and no such facilitates are being extended to him, and so petitioners are liable to be punished under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the 1st respondent, took the complaint on file under sections 406 and 420 IPC and issued process to the petitioners. Hence these petition to quash the complaint on the ground that the averments therein do not disclose the offences alleged. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that even assuming that all the averments in the complaint are true, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are committed by the petitioners, because there was no entrustment of jewellery to them by the 1st respondent and since they never induced him to part with, and 1 st respondent did not part with, any valuable security on their inducement, and in any event, complaint for an offence under Section 406 IPC is hopelessly by barred by time. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent is that 1st respondent has ample documentary evidence with him to show that he has been cheated, and so even assuming that the complaint under Section 406 IPC is barred by limitation, since there is no limitation for filing a complaint under Section 420 IPC, the entire complaint cannot be quashed. ( 6 ) AS per Section 468 Cr. PC. , limitation for filing a complaint in respect of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, is three years. Offence under Section 406 IPC, is punishable with imprisonment for three years. So complaint, for an offence under Section 406 ipc should be filed within three years from the date of commission of the offence. The averments in the complaint show that 1st respondent from more than three years prior to the lodging of the complaint, was demanding return of the jewellery. Therefore it is clear that the complaint is filed more than three years after the 1st respondent made demands to the petitioners to return the jewellery. The averments in the complaint show that 1st respondent from more than three years prior to the lodging of the complaint, was demanding return of the jewellery. Therefore it is clear that the complaint is filed more than three years after the 1st respondent made demands to the petitioners to return the jewellery. So the complaint for offence under Section 406 IPC is liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation and is accordingly quashed. ( 7 ) THE averments in the complaint and the sworn statement of the complaint do not disclose the necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 420 IPC. Even assuming that what all stated by the 1st respondent in the sworn statement and the complaint are true offence under section 420 IPC, is not made out therefrom because none of the petitioners induced the 1st respondent to part with any jewellery and since it is not even the case of the 1st respondent that he parted with the jewellery on the inducement of any of the petitioners. Therefore, merely because the 1st respondent says that he has ample evidence with him to show that petitioners cheated him, a complaint, which does not disclose the necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 420 IPC need not be tried. 1st respondent ought to have produced some evidence at least at the time of his sworn statement to establish the necessary ingredients of cheating. He did not do so. ( 8 ) SINCE the complainant and the sworn statement of the 1st respondent do not disclose the necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 420 IPC, the complaint for an offence under Section 420 IPC also is liable to be, and is quashed. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, the petitions are allowed. Proceedings against the petitioners in cc No. 86 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad are quashed.