JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. PS Laskar, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur in Crl. Appeal No.21(3)/2008 upholding the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 417 IPC and modifying the sentence. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Jonali Hazarika lodged a complaint before the magistrate. It was alleged in the complaint that she was in love with the revision petitioner Bimal Hazarika and out of love, the revision petitioner cohabited with the complainant. The revision petitioner also gave contraceptive tablet to the complainant and they continued to have physical relationship. It has also been stated in the complaint that the revision petitioner promised to marry her. While they were in love, the revision petitioner was unemployed and in the meantime, the revision petitioner got employment and thereafter, at the intervention of the villagers, marriage was solemnized between the revision petitioner and the complainant. After about eight days of marriage, the revision petitioner went to his place of posting in Gujrat leaving the complainant in his house with his parents. The parents of the revision petitioner assaulted the complainant and had driven her out from the matrimonial home. The complainant thereafter lodged a case under Section 498 A IPC, against the parents of the revision petitioner and also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. On the basis of the above allegation in the complaint, learned Trial Court took cognizance and issued process. 4. Upon appearance of the revision petitioner in obedience to the summons, learned trial Court proceeded with the trial of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 417 IPC. 5. During trial, the complainant examined 4 witnesses. The revision petitioner also examined himself as defence witness. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court held the revision petitioner guilty of committing offence under Section 417 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. Learned magistrate also directed the revision petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. 6. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the trial Court, the revision petitioner filed an appeal and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order upheld the conviction, however, reduced the compensation amount to Rs.15,000/-. Learned magistrate also directed the revision petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. 6. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the trial Court, the revision petitioner filed an appeal and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order upheld the conviction, however, reduced the compensation amount to Rs.15,000/-. The legality and propriety of the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has been challenged in this revision petition. 7. Mr. Saikia submits that there was no legal evidence at all to bring home the charge under Section 417 IPC against the petitioner and therefore, conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner was bad in law. Learned Addl. PP also fairly concedes that the evidence brought on record does not justify the conviction and sentence of the accused revision petitioner. 8. Section 415 IPC defines offence of cheating as under: 415. 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”. 9. Section 415 IPC comprises of two parts, first part deals with the deception of any person fraudulently or dishonestly and inducing the person so deceived, to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. Second part deals with deception of any person and thereby intentionally inducing 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 likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 10. The present case, as would appear from the allegation, comes under second part and in order to prove the offence under the second part, most important ingredients required to be proved by the prosecution is the deception by the accused either by making false or misleading representation or by other action or omission. 11. 10. The present case, as would appear from the allegation, comes under second part and in order to prove the offence under the second part, most important ingredients required to be proved by the prosecution is the deception by the accused either by making false or misleading representation or by other action or omission. 11. In the present case, the complainant has stated in the FIR and also deposed in Court as Pw-1, that she and the accused were in love and the accused had physical relationship with her promising to marry her. Pw-1 also stated that she spent one week as husband and wife and thereafter, the accused went to join his service leaving her with his parents. PW-1 further deposed that parents of the revision petitioner (accused) tortured her and had driven her away from the matrimonial home in absence of her husband. Pw-2 also deposed that the accused and Pw-1 were married. Pw-3 stated that after marriage of the complainant (Pw-1) with the revision petitioner, Pw-1 lived about 7 months in the matrimonial home. Pw-4 stated that the complainant and revision petitioner (accused) were in love and they were also married and lived together as husband and wife. There is no evidence, that the Pw-1 consented cohabitation with the accused only after the promise of marriage. Even if it is assumed for the moment, that revision petitioner made such promise, the overwhelming evidence that the revision petitioner married her and lived as husband and wife speaks loud and clear that there was no breach of promise by the accused. 12. From the above evidence, it is abundantly clear that there was absolutely no materials to show that revision petitioner deceived the complainant or by such deception, intentionally induced her to do anything which he would not have done, if she was not so deceived. In fact, the complaint itself did not disclose any ingredients of offence under Section 417 IPC, to justify even issuance of process. The evidence and the materials brought on record demonstrates that this is a pure case of abuse of process of the Court. Since no offence has been made out, the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner under Section 417 IPC and upholding of such conviction by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned order appears to be perverse. The evidence and the materials brought on record demonstrates that this is a pure case of abuse of process of the Court. Since no offence has been made out, the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner under Section 417 IPC and upholding of such conviction by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned order appears to be perverse. The conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner is therefore set-aside and the revision petition is allowed. 13. Send back the LCR.