JUDGMENT 1. Both the writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order, as they arise out of same case and the issues involved are also the same. 2. The petitioners of both cases have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the First Information Report of Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 69 of 2009 (G.R. No. 858 of 2009) instituted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and others. 3. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the facts giving rise these applicationsneed to be taken notice of. It appears that the informant-Samuel Anand Ekka (respondent no. 4) lodged a First Information Report stating therein that he being a labour contractor used to purchase the cement from Sudip Sanyal @ Benu, one of the accused (not the petitioner in these cases), as a result of which, he became quite intimate to him. In course of time, Sudip Sanyal @ Benu insisted on the informant to go for having a cement agency of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. On being induced, when the informant agreed to his proposal, the accused Sudip Sanyal @ Benu asked him to provide two blank cheques and one letter head with signatures and a cheque of Rs. 50,000/-, which were given to Sudip Sanyal @ Benu and then an agency was opened at Simdega in the name and Style as Ekka Cement Centre. Thereafter, accused - Sudip Sanyal @ Benu provided cement twice through his vehicle. Meanwhile, accused - Sudip Sanyal @ Benu also managed a job for the father of the informant -respondent no. 4 and paid Rs.3000/- but for a month only. In course of time, Sudip Sanyal @ Benu communicated the informant that his agency has been terminated but all on a sudden, he received a notice on 30.10.2006 given by M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. intimating therein that a cheque, worth Rs.5,76,102/-issued by him, has bounced back. 4 and paid Rs.3000/- but for a month only. In course of time, Sudip Sanyal @ Benu communicated the informant that his agency has been terminated but all on a sudden, he received a notice on 30.10.2006 given by M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. intimating therein that a cheque, worth Rs.5,76,102/-issued by him, has bounced back. Then, the informant could realize that accused- Sudip Sanyal @ Benu in connivance with Prakash Chand Agarwal @ Prakash Agarwal, Ajay Kumar Agrawal and Sudhir Kumar Agrawal (petitioners in W.P. (Cr.) No. 315 of 2009) and also with the officials of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd., such as Senior Vice President (Sales) (petitioner no. 1), Assistant Vice President (Sales) (petitioner no. 2), Assistant Sales Manager (petitioner no. 3) and M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd.-petitioner no. 4 ( all petitioners in W.P. (Cr.) No. 288 of 2009) defrauded and cheated him (informant) of Rs.5,76,102/-. On getting the said notice, the informant contacted the accused - Sudip Sanyal @ Benu who assured him that everything would be set at right but immediately thereafter he received a summon issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata in connection with Complaint Case No. C-2091/2007. Thereupon, when the informant met with the accused - Sudip Sanyal @ Benu, he confessed before him that he used to take the delivery of cement in the name of Ekka Cement Centre and to sell it in Ranchi itself and that he had also opened bank account at Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Ranchi and also at Bank of Maharashtra, Ranchi Branch in the name of Ekka Cement Centre. These acts were done by him by impersonating himself as informant and in this manner, all the accused persons cheated the informant and got him falsely implicated in a case lodged under the N.I. Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (Cr.) No. 315 of 2009 submitted that petitioner nos. 2and 3, both sons of petitioner no. These acts were done by him by impersonating himself as informant and in this manner, all the accused persons cheated the informant and got him falsely implicated in a case lodged under the N.I. Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (Cr.) No. 315 of 2009 submitted that petitioner nos. 2and 3, both sons of petitioner no. 1, do business under the name and style of PASA (India) Private Ltd. as a Clearing and Forwarding Agent (C.F.A.) of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. and under the terms and conditions agreed between the petitioners' Company and M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd., these petitioners had nothing to do in the matter of appointment of any dealer or sale of the cement manufactured by M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd., rather under the agreement, when the cement is transferred to the warehouse on stock transfer basis under railway receipt or lorry receipt, petitioner nos. 2 and 3, being Clearing and Forwarding Agents, get the delivery of the cement and bring it to the warehouse of the Company. Thereafter, as per guide-lines of the Company, the petitioners deliver the cement to the dealers, buyers or other warehouse of the Company by getting the price thereof by cheque drawn in favour of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. Thus, the Company, namely, PASA (India) Private Ltd. does not have any role to play in the matter of appointment of the stockist or dealer of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. nor it does get payment on delivering the cement to the dealers or any other buyers and under these situations, the petitioners cannot be said to have misappropriated the money or cheated the informant-respondent no. 4 or have committed offence of forgery. Moreover, there is no such allegation also, rather it has simply been alleged that the main accused in connivance with these petitioners and officials of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. committed offences, but that is a bald statement, as under the procedure of sale of cement, as indicated above, the question of committing aforesaid offences does not arise. Moreover, there is no such allegation also, rather it has simply been alleged that the main accused in connivance with these petitioners and officials of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. committed offences, but that is a bald statement, as under the procedure of sale of cement, as indicated above, the question of committing aforesaid offences does not arise. Moreover, nothing has been alleged about any omission or commission of act or acts showing their agreements with the main accused to commit the offence as alleged and as such, the prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which gets established from the fact that when a cheque, issued by the informant to M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd., bounced back, prosecution has been lodged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and in order to take defence these allegations have been levelled and, therefore, the prosecution undoubtedly is tainted with malice. Thus, on this account also, First Information Report is fit to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners of W.P. (Cr.) No. 288 of 2009 submitted that the petitioners who are the officials of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. are unnecessarily being prosecuted in this case, even though no case of misappropriation, cheating or even of forgery is made out against them, as the officials of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. has never been alleged to have induced the informant by misrepresenting the fact to have agency of the Company, rather on being appointed as an agent of the Company, cement as per advice of the informant was delivered to him, price of which was paid through cheques which on its deposit, bounced back and then the prosecution was lodged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and thereupon this case has been lodged with the allegations mainly centres around accused Sudip Sanyal @ Benu. However, petitioners were also implicated in the case on the allegation of committing offence by hatching conspiracy with the other accused, but not even a semblance of an act of conspiracy is there in First Information Report and, therefore, under the circumstances as aforesaid, one would come to conclusion easily that the petitioners are being prosecuted for wreaking vengeance. In these backgrounds, the First Information Report is fit to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the informant-respondent no. In these backgrounds, the First Information Report is fit to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the informant-respondent no. 4 submitted that one of the accused, namely, SudipSanyal @ Benu, got an agency opened in the name of Ekka Cement Centre by taking two blank cheques and one letter head with signatures of the informant and a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- as a security money and the said accused in order to have confidence on him even arranged a job for the father of the informant for Rs.3000/-per month but after giving Rs.3000 only for once his services were terminated and then after two transactions, M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. stopped sending cement to the said agency but accused - Sudip Sanyal @ Benu went on doing business by taking cement from M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. in the name of Ekka Cement Centre without the knowledge of the informant. When a considerable amount fell due, blank cheque, which had been given by the informant to the main accused, were delivered to M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. which bounced back and in this manner, main accused in connivance with the others not only cheated the informant but also implicated him in a false case and under these situations, whether the other accused persons than the main did play any role or not, it is a matter of investigation and hence at this stage, the First Information Report never warrants to be quashed. 7. Thus, on one hand, the stand of the petitioners is that the allegations made in the First Information Report never constitute any offence as against them, still they are being prosecuted by the informant to wreak vengeance or to take a defence in a case in which the informant-respondent no. 4 is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, on the other hand, the stand of the other side is that where the allegation of conspiracy is there, it needs to be investigated upon and if during investigation the investigating agency would not find anything, they will not be sent up for trial. 8. 4 is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, on the other hand, the stand of the other side is that where the allegation of conspiracy is there, it needs to be investigated upon and if during investigation the investigating agency would not find anything, they will not be sent up for trial. 8. It be stated that a prima facie case made out either in the First Information Report or in the complaint set the criminal law in motion and if no prima facie case is made out either in the First Information Report or in the complaint, why the innocent person be allowed to be harassed unnecessarily and that too, in a case which has been brought by the parties in order to wreak vengeance and under these situations, if the criminal proceeding is allowed to be continued, it would result in manifest injustice. 9. In this background, it is now to be noted as to whether any offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against these petitioners. 10. The offence of cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows:- " 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 persons 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 was 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'." 11. From its reading it appears that the following ingredients should necessarily be there for constituting offence of cheating :- (1) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him .(2) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any persons, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or .(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not door omit if he were not so deceived. .(3) in cases covered by 2(b) the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in bodily or reputation or property. 12. Thus, the first element necessary for constituting the offence of cheating is a deception of the complainant by the accused. Unless there is deception, the question of committing offence of cheating does not arise. After deception is practiced, the persons deceived should get induced to do or omit to do something. Then, the question arises as to what is the deception? In the ordinary sense deception has in it the element of misleading or making a person believe something that is false or inculcating of one so that he takes the false as true, the unreal as existent, the spurious as genuine and it is also necessary that deception should be right from the beginning of the contract. Applying the said principle in the context of the allegation, it does appear that the very first element of deception constituting an offence of cheating is lacking, as nowhere it has been alleged by the informant that the petitioners of both the cases ever induced by misrepresenting the fact either to take agency of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. or to make payment or to give blank cheques and as such, the informant cannot be said to have been deceived by the petitioners in any manner and thus, no offence is made out under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners even if the entire allegations are accepted to be true. 13. Next is the question to be considered as to whether any offence under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The provision as contained under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:-"Criminal breach of trust.--- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits 'criminal breach of trust'." 14. On going through the First Information Report, it never appears to be a case of the complaint of entrustment of any property to any of these petitioners and thus, question of committing the offence of misapplication or criminal breach of trust does not arise at all. Similarly, no allegation whatsoever is there to show even prima facie that the petitioners did something which constitute offences either under Section 467, 468 or 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under these situations, there would be no hesitation in holding that no offence either under Sections 467, 468 or 471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against these petitioners. On the contrary, the instant prosecution seems to have been brought against the petitioners in order to wreak vengeance, as the informant is being prosecuted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act at the instance of M/s Lafarge India Private Ltd. 15. Under the aforesaid situation, the First Information Report of Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 69 of 2009 (G.R. No. 858 of 2009), instituted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code is, hereby, quashed, so far these petitioners are concerned. 16. In the result, both the writ applications are allowed.