ORDER By the Court.- This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1552 of 2009 including the order dated 13.4.2010 passed by the then Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. Giridih whereby and where under cognizance 01' the offence was taken under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 4.11.2004 the petitioner executed power of attorney in favour of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 for selling of the properties. Upon execution of the power of attorney opposite party No. 2 made an agreement with one Kalyan Kumar Sao for selling the land and in lieu of that he received a sum of Rs.1 lac as an advance on 2.12.2004 and gave it to the petitioner but the petitioner on 9.12.2004 cancelled the power of attorney which had been executed in favour of opposite party No.2. There upon opposite party No. 2 requested the petitioner at several occasion to execute sale deed in favour of Kalyan Kumar Sao but the petitioner on one pretext or the other avoided it, Ultimately in the year 2009. complaint case 'was lodged upon which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code which has been challenged in this application to be bad. 3. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State the question does arise as to whether the allegation made in the compliant does constitute offence. The offence of cheating has been defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under. 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" . 4. On bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it does appear that the following ingredients be there for constituting offence of cheating. reputation or property is said to "cheat" . 4. On bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it does appear that the following ingredients be there for constituting offence of cheating. (I) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission. (II) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person 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. 5. At this stage. I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar. 2000 (2) East Cr C 634 (SC): (2000) 4 SCC 168 , wherein it has been held as under: "14. On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest. 15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is, the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is, the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed." 6. On applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it be stated that the petitioner has never been alleged to have induced either opposite party No.2 or Kalyan Kumar Sao fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to him in lieu of sale of the land nor there appears to be any allegation that the petitioner made a false or misleading representation either by words or by action. 7. Under the circumstances, the allegation made in the complaint does not constitute any criminal offence, Accordingly the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1552 of 2009 including the order dated 13.4.2010 is hereby quashed. 8. In allowed, the result this application is Application allowed.