( 1 ) HEARD Sri M. N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and sri D. Ramalinga Swami, learned counsel representing Respondent No. 2. ( 2 ) SRI M. N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner, would maintain that even if the allegations made in the charge sheet are to be taken on their face value, it may amount to breach of contractual obligation and hence definitely the provisions specified in the charge sheet under sections 418 and 420 IPC are not attracted. Therefore, the cognizance of the offence taken by the learned Magistrate under section 420 IPC cannot be sustained. ( 3 ) PER contra, Sri Ramalinga Swami learned counsel representing the respondent no. 2, would maintain that it is a clear case of cheating and hence, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The learned counsel also would maintain that even otherwise, these are all factual aspects, which may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage and hence the same need not be interfered with under Section 482 cr. P. C. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor also would contend that in the light of the allegations made in the charge sheet, it appears to be a contractual obligation in relation to the unfinished work between the parties. ( 5 ) I have perused the material available on record. The petitioner herein is the Proprietor of sri Balaji Marbles and Granites, jangareddygudem. The 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant is doing business is gold jewellery at Jangareddigudem under the name and style "vanaparthi Jewellers" It is stated that the complainant intended his show room decorated with decorative tiles and marbles, flooring etc. , and entered into contract with the petitioner to get the work done through him at the agreed cost rs. 1,50,000/ -. It is further stated that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid on 10-12-2002 and the petitioner commenced the work. It is further stated that in all the de-facto complainant paid Rs. 1,65,045/- to the petitioner on different dates but the work could not be completed within the stipulated time of three months, as agreed by him. Instead of completing the work, the petitioner had gone to some other work and thus he had cheated the complainant. It is further stated that in all the de-facto complainant paid Rs. 1,65,045/- to the petitioner on different dates but the work could not be completed within the stipulated time of three months, as agreed by him. Instead of completing the work, the petitioner had gone to some other work and thus he had cheated the complainant. Hence, the de- factor complainant filed the said complaint in the Court below on 27-03-2003 and the same was referred to police under Section 156 (3) cr. P. C. , and later, on 21-04-2003, it was registered as a case in crime No. 75 of 2003 of Jangareddygudem police Station. On 26-04-2003, the petitioner was arrested and was released on bail 12 days thereafter. The 1st respondent-Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet on 30-4-2003 before the learned ii Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, kovvur, and the same is pending as CC no. 997 of 2003. ( 6 ) IT seems that the main ground of attack is merely the delay in completion of the work and the demand made for some more amount and these aspects may not come within the meaning of cheating. ( 7 ) SECTION 415 IPC reads as follows: cheating: Whoever, the 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. Section 420 IPC reads thus: cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is singed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. ( 8 ) EVEN as per the allegations made in the charge sheet, it is clear that it is just a contractual obligations between the parties. ( 8 ) EVEN as per the allegations made in the charge sheet, it is clear that it is just a contractual obligations between the parties. Even otherwise, if there is some delay in completing the work at the time of progress of the work and even if some demand was made for some additional amount, these are all concerned with the contractual obligations between the parties and if the de-facto complainant suffered any loss in this regard, the remedy is elsewhere by filing a regular suit for damages or approach any other forum for redressal of his grievance. Even, if the allegations made in the charge sheet are to be taken on their face value as they are, this court is well satisfied that this is not a case where the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are attracted. Hence, it would be a futile exercise to further permit the prosecution to be proceeded with against the petitioner. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC. No. 977 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Additional judicial I Class Magistrate, Kovvur, are hereby quashed.