ORDER 1. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 924 of 2010 including the order dated 2.2.2011 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 418, 419, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. 2. The case of the complainant as has been made out in the complaint petition is that the complainant entered into an agreement with M/s. Maa Ambey Group of Company for purchasing a piece of land measuring 11 decimal. On 20.2.2007 entire consideration amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid and it was agreed in between the parties that the sale deed would be executed by January, 2007 but the vendor did not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant, rather executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner no. 1, who happens to be the husband of the complainant. 3. On such allegation, complaint was lodged which was registered as C.P. Case No. 924 of 2010 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After enquiry, the court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 418, 419 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and others. The order taking cognizance is under challenge. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that accepting the entire allegations which have been made against the petitioners to be true, no offence of cheating in terms of Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code or the offence of cheating by impersonation is made out against the petitioners as the complainant had never entered into an agreement with any of the petitioners, rather according to the case of the complainant, he had entered into an agreement with M/s. Maa Ambey Group of Company, who had agreed to execute the sale deed on receiving consideration amount but he did not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and even if the vendor did execute sale deed in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be said, in the circumstances stated above, to have cheated the complainant. 6. Further it was submitted that question of commission of offence by cheating by impersonation never does arise as it has never been the case of the complainant that she has been cheated by the petitioners by an act of impersonation. 7. 6. Further it was submitted that question of commission of offence by cheating by impersonation never does arise as it has never been the case of the complainant that she has been cheated by the petitioners by an act of impersonation. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party no. 2 submits that admittedly M/s. Maa Ambey Group of Company had entered into an agreement with the complainant and in whose favour sale deed was never executed by the seller, in spite of receiving consideration amount, rather he executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner no. 1. Since consideration amount had been paid by the complainant, the petitioner no. 1 was required to protect the interest of the complainant by not getting sale deed executed in his favour and thereby the court has rightly taken cognizance of the offence under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, I do not find any substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 9. It be reiterated that it is the case of the complainant that the complainant had entered into an agreement for purchasing a piece of land with M/s. Maa Ambey Group of Company, who having received the consideration amount did not execute sale deed in favour of the complainant, rather executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner no.1. Accepting this allegation to be true, I failed to understand as to how the offence under Section 418 is made out. Section 418 reads as follows:- "418. Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensure to person whose interest offender is bound protect-Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." 10. From its perusal it appears that the person who cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect. From its perusal it appears that the person who cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect. Therefore, first ingredient seems to be there of cheating and the second ingredient seems to be there that the person under legal contract or by law is bound to protest the interest of the person cheated. 11. 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." 12. 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. (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. 13. 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. 14. 13. 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. 14. 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 wholly lacking as the petitioner in the fact of the case was never in the picture when the complainant had entered into an agreement with M/s. Maa Ambey Group of Company and thereby question of deception on the part of the petitioner does not arise. Secondly, since it has been found that it is never the case of cheating, I need not to go into other part of section 418 which speak about the matter relating to protection of interest of the person cheated. 15. Accordingly, I do find that no offence is made out under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Further it be recorded that in the facts and circumstances the offence under Section 419 is not made out as it has never been the case of the complainant that the petitioner did cheat the complainant by any act of impersonation. 17. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 924 of 2010 including the order dated 2.2.2011 taking cognizance is hereby quashed. 18. In the result, this application stands allowed.