ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State and also the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case no.C-1183 of 2011 including the order dated 3.1.2012 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. 3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of. 4. It is a case of the complainant that the Complainant Basudeo Prasad Mehta and his wife were having a joint account in the State Bank of India in which account a sum of Rs. 1,59,967.19 was there on 12.3.2007 on which date the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-in a fixed deposit, vide STDR No.A/D 1/81 981448 which as to be matured on 12.3.2011. 5. Further case is that after the date of maturity, when the complainant approached the Bank officials to take payment of the amount, it was informed to him that the said amount has been further invested and the date of maturity is 20.2.2012 and to this effect, a receipt dated 27.5.2011 was also granted. However, when the complainant fell in need of money, he came to the Bank to take out the amount but it was told to the complainant that no such term deposit is there in the name of the complainant and at the same time it was also conveyed to him that the short term deposit receipt is forged one. On such allegation, a complaint was lodged in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh which was registered as Complainant Case No.1183 of 2011. After holding enquiry, the court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, vide its order dated 3.1.2012 which is under challenge. 6. Mr. After holding enquiry, the court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, vide its order dated 3.1.2012 which is under challenge. 6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is true that the complainant had approached the petitioners to take the maturity amount with the short term deposit receipt dated 27.5.2011 showing re-investment of the amount up-till 20.2.2014 but when it was found that both the receipts, i.e. special term deposit receipt and short term receipt are forged, it were cancelled and the matter was informed to the complainant which fact has also been admitted by the complainant in his legal notice sent to the petitioner. In spite of that, the complainant lodged this case, though he had also lodged a case before the consumer forum. But in the facts and circumstances, no offence is made out under which cognizance of the offences has been taken. 7. As against this, Mr. Sen learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the special term deposit receipt on deposit of money and also the short term deposit receipt on reinvestment of money had been issued by the Bank authority and subsequently, in order to deny the payment, stand has been taken that those receipts are forged and as such, it is a clear cut case of cheating and forgery. 8. Thus, the question does arise as to whether on the face of allegation, offence of cheating or forgery is made out or not? 9. The offence of cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under. “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. 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 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. 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. It has also been held that deception should be right from the beginning. 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. At the same time, no offence of forgery is made out. 14. Forgery has been defined under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: “Forgery – Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 15. The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code is making a false document which should be in terms of Section 464. 16. Here in the instant case, no such allegation is there of making a false document by the petitioners, rather the case of the complainant is that on finding documents of STDR and also short term deposit receipt being forged, were cancelled. 17. Accordingly, no offence of forgery is also made out. 16. Here in the instant case, no such allegation is there of making a false document by the petitioners, rather the case of the complainant is that on finding documents of STDR and also short term deposit receipt being forged, were cancelled. 17. Accordingly, no offence of forgery is also made out. 18. Under the situation, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case no.C-1183 of 2011 including the order dated 3.1.2012 taking cognizance is hereby quashed. 19. In the result, this application is allowed. Application allowed.