Judgment Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 6.2.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr.Rev.No.2 of 2013 affirming the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,1st class, Bokaro in connection with Sector IV P.S case no.81 of 2009 whereby and whereunder prayer made for discharge was rejected. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that this petitioner entered into the house of the informant, who happens to be the nephew of the petitioner. However, with the intervention of the well wisher, it was agreed upon that the petitioner would be staying in the said house and would be making construction of the house. It was also agreed in between the parties that the petitioner would be depositing certain amount with Balram Singh in lieu of staying in the said house. That amount, in fact, was deposited by the petitioner with Balram Singh which was supposed to be taken back by the informant but when the informant came to Balram Singh for taking money, it was told by Balram Singh that the petitioner had earlier come to him and took away the entire amount by saying that he will be giving the amount to the informant. 4. On such allegation, a case was registered as Sector IV P.S. Case no.81 of 2009 under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, when charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken. After appearance, an application was filed for discharge taking plea that no offence is made out either under Section 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code. However, that application was rejected. 5. Being aggrieved with that order, Revision application was preferred which was also dismissed. Against that order, this application has been filed. 6. Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that accepting the entire allegation to be true, no offence is made out either under Section 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code as the petitioner has never been alleged to have done anything fraudulently or dishonestly and in that view of the matter, offence certainly does not get attracted. 7. Upon it, Mr. 7. Upon it, Mr. Manish Kumar, leaned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submitted that it has agreed upon in between the parties that the petitioner would be staying in his house and in lieu of that, he would be depositing the money with the third person and in fact, it had been deposited but when the petitioner went there to take the money, it was told by third person Balram Singh that the petitioner had taken back the money by saying that he will be giving it to him and thereby it can easily be said that it is a case of misappropriation. 8. In the context of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in 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”. 9. 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 by the person alleged to have deceived the complainant. (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. 10. 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. 10. 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 ? 11. In the instant case there has been no allegation whatsoever that this petitioner did an act fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the informant to do an act, rather the case is that the informant on intervention of well wisher allowed the petitioner to stay in his house on a condition that the petitioner would pay money in lieu of staying in the house of the informant but that money was not paid to the informant. Therefore, there does not appear any allegation of informant being duped by the petitioner fraudulently or dishonestly. 12. Similarly, offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code also does not get attracted. 13. Criminal breach of trust has been defined in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: “405. 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 reading of the said provision, the following ingredients should be there for constituting the offence under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. “(a) a person should have been entrusted with property or entrusted with dominion over property; (b) that person should dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use that property, or dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully suffer any other person to do so; (c) that such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of laws prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.” 15. In the background of the allegation made in the complaint, I do not find it a case of criminal breach of trust, rather it is a pure case of breach of agreement which could have been enforced in the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 16. Under the circumstances, both the orders passed by the trial court as also by the revisional court are hereby set aside. 17. In the result, this application is allowed.