Order This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 30.9.2003 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 826 of 2002 (T.R. No. 754 of 2004) whereby and where under, cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 323 and 379 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. 2. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, facts giving rise to this application need to be taken notice of. 3. It is the case of the complainant that both the petitioners approached to the complainant and conveyed him that they are intending to sell a piece of land measuring an area of 12.43 decimals of Plot Nos. 351 and 352 appertaining to Khata Nos. 277 and 278, situated at Mauza - Pundag, P.S.-Jagarnathpur. The complainant agreed to purchase the said land on consideration of Rs. 1, 08,000/-. Thereupon, an agreement for sale was executed on payment of Rs. 1, 08,000/- to the petitioners. Thereafter, a written declaration was made by the petitioners that the complainant can use the land in the manner in which he wishes. Subsequently, a power of attorney was also executed in favour of the complainant. On that basis, the complainant came in possession of the land in question and since then he was using' the land. Suddenly, a legal notice sent by petitioner no. 1 was received wherein it was communicated that henceforth the complainant may not sell the land, as power of attorney given in his favour has been revoked on 26.6.2000, which was replied with calling upon the petitioners to execute the sale deed but neither they did execute the sale deed nor returned the money. 4. It has further been alleged that the other day, petitioner no. 2 came along with some anti - social elements to whom the complainant asked as to why not they are executing the sale deed and further it was told as to why the power of attorney has been revoked. Upon it, petitioner no. 2 told the complainant that neither the sale deed would be executed nor the money, which had been given by him, would be returned and thereafter he assaulted the complainant and also snatched away Rs. 500/- from his pocket. 5. Upon it, petitioner no. 2 told the complainant that neither the sale deed would be executed nor the money, which had been given by him, would be returned and thereafter he assaulted the complainant and also snatched away Rs. 500/- from his pocket. 5. On such allegation, a complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 826 of 2002 upon which, cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 323 and 379 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners which is under challenge. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that taking the entire allegations to be true, no offence is made out under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against any of the petitioners and further no offence is made out either under Section 323 or 379 of Indian Penal Code so far petitioner no. 1 is concerned and hence the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside so far offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is concerned. 7. As against this, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that on the promise being given by the petitioners that the sale deed would be executed, a sum of Rs. 1, 08,000/- was given by the complainant to the petitioners upon which a power of attorney was executed but that was subsequently revoked. Thereafter, when the complainant asked from petitioner no. 2 as to why power of attorney has been revoked, petitioner no. 2 conveyed the complainant that the sale-deed would never be executed in his favour and thereafter he was assaulted by the petitioner no. 2 who also snatched away Rs. 500/- Further allegation that neither the sale-deed was executed nor the money, which had been taken by the petitioners, was returned back to the complainant and thereby, they certainly committed offence under Sections 420, 379 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and hence the order taking cognizance never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that when offer was made by the petitioners of selling the land, the complainant agreed to purchase the said land on consideration of amount of Rs. 1, 08,000/- which in fact was paid to the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners backed out from executing the sale deed and also refused to return the money. 9. 1, 08,000/- which in fact was paid to the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners backed out from executing the sale deed and also refused to return the money. 9. In this event, question does arise as to whether the allegation made in the complaint does constitute offence of cheating or not? 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 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'." 11. From its reading it appears that 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 received 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 do or 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 offence of cheating never gets attracted. After deception has been 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. 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 principle constituting a criminal offence of cheating in context of the allegation it does appear that first element of deception constituting an offence of cheating is lacking as nowhere the allegations made in the complaint do indicate about the complainant being deceived by the petitioners in any manner. 13. Further, I may refer to a case of Iridium India Telecom Limited vs. Motorola Incorporated and Others [ (2006)6 SCC 736 ]* where the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking notice of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code has been pleased to hold that deception is a necessary ingredient for the offence of cheating under both parts of the Section. It be further recorded that if the facts constitute civil liability as well as criminal liability, their the remedy available for civil law cannot be a ground for quashing of the criminal proceeding which proposition of law has also been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Indian Oil Corporation VS. NEPC India Limited and Others [ (2006)6 SCC 736 ] but at the same time, it has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is a growing tendency in business circle to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interest of lenders/ creditors. Such tendency is seen in several family disputes also leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled into a criminal prosecution, there is likelihood in imminent settlement. It has emphatically been said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision that any effort to settle civil dispute and claims which do not involve any criminal offence by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 14. It has emphatically been said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision that any effort to settle civil dispute and claims which do not involve any criminal offence by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 14. Having come to the conclusion that the allegation made in the complaint does not constitute offence of cheating, the order dated 30.9.2003, under which cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against both the petitioners, is hereby quashed. 15. Further, petitioner no. 1 has never been alleged to have committed any offence either under Section 323 or 379 of Indian Penal Code and in that view of the matter, the order taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 323 and 379 of Indian Penal Code is quashed so far petitioner no. 1 is concerned. 16. So far petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the allegations are there to constitute offence under Sections 323 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the court below seems to have rightly taken cognizance under Sections 323 and 379 IPC against petitioner no. 2. 17. Accordingly, this application is allowed in part.