ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2213 of 2008 including the order dated 20.2.2009 whereby and whereunder the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 422 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 3. It is the case of the complainant that petitioner no. 1–proprietor of M/s Goel Roadways to which petitioner no. 2 is an employee, were engaged in the business of transporting the materials of different companies by hiring the trucks and trailers from the market. On 8.1.2007 the accused persons approached the complainant to give his truck on hire to transport material to its destination. On giving assurance that they would give some amount in advance and balance would be paid after transportation of the materials, the complainant transported the materials of the accused persons to its destination whereby the accused persons paid a sum of Rs. 38,93,500/-only in advance but made a promise that payment of balance amount of Rs. 14,96,824/-would be made later on. Out of said amount, a sum of Rs. 11,09,256/-was paid but rest amount of Rs. 3,87,568/-was not paid in spite of several demands being made. 4. On such allegations, a complaint was filed putting allegation that the accused persons committed offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The matter was taken up for inquiry. After holding inquiry, the court did find the prima facie case to be true and took cognizance of the offence under Section 422 of Indian Penal Code vide its order dated 20.2.2009 which is under challenge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accepting the entire allegations made in the complaint to be true, no offence whatsoever is made out either under Section 420 or under Section 422 of Indian Penal Code as the petitioners have never been alleged to have deceived the complainant in any manner, rather it is a simple case of money transaction and hence it is an out and out case of civil dispute. 6. As against this, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 6. As against this, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, submits that the court below having found the prima facie case to be true has taken cognizance of the offence which never warrants to be interfered with. 7. It be stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [(1992)Supp(1) SCC335] has been pleased to lay down certain categories of the cases by way of illustrations wherein inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Code or otherwise to secure ends of justice. One of such categories is:- “Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.” 8. In the context of the principle laid down, one needs to consider as to whether allegation made in the complaint does constitute offence of cheating or not? 9. 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 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”. 10. 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 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 do or omit if he were not so deceived. (3) in cases covered by2(b) the Actor omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in bodily or reputation or property. 11. 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. 12. 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. Here at this stage, the case of Iridium India Telecom Limited vs. Motorola Incorporated and others [(2011)1SCC74] may be referred to wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after 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. The same proposition has 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 ]. In the said case, it has 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 brake 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. Here in the instant case as I have already observed that there has been absolutely nothing in the case showing deception on the part of the complainant, no offence of cheating is made out. 14. Here in the instant case as I have already observed that there has been absolutely nothing in the case showing deception on the part of the complainant, no offence of cheating is made out. At the same time, the question of committing offence under Section 422 of Indian Penal Code does not arise as it is never the case of the complainant that the petitioners dishonestly or fraudulently prevented the complainant from recovering the money which was due to be paid to the complainant. 15. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2213 of 2008 including the order dated 20.2.2009 taking cognizance is hereby quashed. 16. In the result, this application is allowed. Application allowed,