JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate and Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Saibal Mitra, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 assisted by Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, Advocate. 3. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 13.6.12 passed in Complaint Case No.193/2009 whereby cognizance has been taken for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lohardaga, and summon has been issued. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that upon perusal of the complaint petition, no case under the aforesaid Sections 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. He submits that the complainant had approached the accused to buy one tractor and trailor. The specific case of the complainant was that altogether 21 cheques including cheque no.860425 were issued by the complainant by way of security cheques as back as in the year 2007 to purchase Sonalika Tractor and trailor to the accused. He further submits that the accused purchased the truck and trailor which was financed by Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., and the installments in connection with the truck and the trailor were to be deposited from January, 2008 to 25th October, 2011. The counsel further submits that it has been specifically stated in the complaint petition itself that the entire payment was made to the said finance company and after clearing the dues a request was made to the accused to return the aforesaid signed cheques and accordingly, the notice was also issued to that effect. However, as per the allegation, one of the aforesaid cheques, which was bearing no.860425 dated 08.06.2009 was filled up by the accused and the same was presented before the bank for clearance. He submits that it has been alleged in the complaint petition that the said security cheque no.860425 has been misused by the accused and the remaining cheques have not been returned, accordingly, the accused has committed offence under Sections 406,420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. 6. He submits that it has been alleged in the complaint petition that the said security cheque no.860425 has been misused by the accused and the remaining cheques have not been returned, accordingly, the accused has committed offence under Sections 406,420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. 6. The counsel submits that so far as the ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is ex-facie absent in the complaint petition in as much as it is the specific case of the complainant himself that he had handed over the cheques although he claims them to be by way of security cheques. He submits that there is no dispute that the truck and the trailor was purchased. He further submits that there is no dispute that the cheques were signed by the complainant. 7. The counsel has referred to a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2017 SC 5327 (Samir Sahay alias Sameer Sahay Vs. State of U.P and Anr.) and he refers to para – 16 onwards of the said judgment to submit that the ingredient of cheating under Section 415 has been fully considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. 8. The counsel further submits that so far as Sections 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is no element of forgery involved in this case in as much as the signature on the cheque is admitted and merely because the other columns in the cheque are filled and presented for encashment, the same does not constitute an offence of forgery. He further submits that the specific case of the complainant is that 21 cheques were given by the complainant to the petitioner by way of security and out of which one has bounced. The counsel submits that in the instant case, cognizance has been taken only under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code and no case, much less any criminal case, is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that in connection with the bouncing of the said cheque Complaint Case No. 110 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner on 13.07.2009 and the present case was filed by the complainant on 22.12.2009. 9. He further submits that in connection with the bouncing of the said cheque Complaint Case No. 110 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner on 13.07.2009 and the present case was filed by the complainant on 22.12.2009. 9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties on the other hand submits that it has been specifically mentioned in the complaint petition that the entire dues was paid to the finance company for the purchased tractor and trailor. It has also been mentioned in para – 6 of the complaint petition that legal notice was issued by the accused dated 16.06.2009 to the complainant wherein, it was mentioned that a cheque of an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- has been dishonored although there was no dues. It was also mentioned in the complaint petition that the legal notice dated 16.06.2009 was responded by the complainant vide notice dated 20.07.2009 wherein, the complainant had requested the accused to return back the signed cheques, but in spite of that the same was not returned. However, there is no dispute that out of various cheques, only one of the cheques i.e. cheque bearing no. 860425 was used by the accused. Counsel further submits that a complaint petition on account of bouncing of the aforesaid cheque no.860425 was also instituted by the accused and ultimately the said complaint case filed by the accused has been rejected and the complainant of the present case has been acquitted which further strengthens the present case. 10. In response, the Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of acquittal which has been passed in the criminal case filed by the petitioner and he submits that the benefit of doubt has been given to the accused of the said case, who is the complainant of the present case, on the ground that various columns of the cheque no.860425 was written in English and the signature was in hindi and accordingly held in the said case that blank cheque was issued. 11. 11. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that it the specific case of the complainant is that certain number of signed blank cheques were issued by the complaint by way of security and handed over to the accused (petitioner) and out of those cheques, cheque no.860425 was filled and used by the accused of the present case although the entire dues in relation to the tractor and trailor was cleared by the complainant by making payment to the financer to whom the repayment was to be made from the period January 2008 to 25th October, 2011. 12. From perusal of the complaint petition involved in the instant case, it appears that on 20.07.2009, the complainant of the instant case had requested the accused by way of a legal notice to return back all the signed blank cheques. The allegation in the complaint petition is that one of the signed blank cheques bearing no. 860425 was utilized by the accused which was handed over by the complainant to the accused and the remaining were not returned in spite of requests. Accordingly, complaint case was filed on 22.12.2009 alleging offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code but cognizance was taken only under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code and it was also mentioned in the order taking cognizance that no case under remaining sections was made out. 13. This Court finds that the complainant has been acquitted in the complaint case filed by the petitioner in connection with bouncing of cheque no.860425 being Complaint Case No. 110 of 2009 filed on 13/07/2009 and disposed of on 21.03.2014 wherein benefit of doubt has been given to the accused of the said case, who is the complainant of the present case, on the ground that various columns of the cheque no.860425 was written in English and the signature was in hindi and accordingly it was held in the said case that blank cheque was issued. The present complaint case has been filed on 22.12.2009 after filing of Complaint Case No. 110 of 2009 on 13/07/2009 in relation to cheque no.860425 dated 08.06.2009. Cheque no.860425 dated 08.06.2009 for an amount of Rs. The present complaint case has been filed on 22.12.2009 after filing of Complaint Case No. 110 of 2009 on 13/07/2009 in relation to cheque no.860425 dated 08.06.2009. Cheque no.860425 dated 08.06.2009 for an amount of Rs. 1.55 lakhs and was presented for clearance before the bank on the same day which was dishonored on 09.06.2009 on account of insufficient funds for which notice was issued on 16.06.2009 and the case regarding dishonor of the cheque being Complaint Case No. 110 of 2009 was filed on 13.07.2009. So far as the rest of the cheques mentioned in the present case are concerned, the same were not utilized as is apparent from the complaint petition itself and also from the submissions of the counsel appearing for the complainant. 14. The offence of cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows: "Cheating-Whoever, by deceiving any persons, 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". 15. From its reading it appears that following ingredients should necessarily be there for constituting offence of cheating. (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him. (ii) (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. (iii) 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. 16. Thus, the first element necessary for constituting the offence of cheating is inducement by deception of the complainant by the accused. Unless there is deception, the offence of cheating never gets attracted. 16. Thus, the first element necessary for constituting the offence of cheating is inducement by 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. In the ordinary sense deception has in it the element of misleading or making a person believe something that is false or inculcating one so that he takes the false as true, the unreal as existent, the spurious as genuine and it is also necessary that deception should be right from the beginning of the contract. A bare perusal of Section 415 read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code clearly provides that the fraudulent and dishonest inducement on the part of the accused must be at the inception and not at a subsequent stage. 17. Applying the principle constituting a criminal offence of cheating in context of the allegations levelled in the instant case, it appears that the very first element of deception constituting an offence of cheating is lacking as nowhere allegations made indicate about the complainant being deceived by the petitioner in any manner to deliver the so called security cheques to the petitioner. There is no element of deception in the instant case. There is no doubt that deception is a necessary ingredient for the offence of cheating under both parts of the Section. Further, the petitioner has never been alleged to have induced the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly to part with the cheques, rather it is the specific case of the complainant that the cheques were handed over to the accused by way of security and out of them one has been used by the accused. Thus, there is no element of fraudulent or dishonest inducement of the complainant by deceiving him at the hand of the accused. 18. So far as the alleged offence under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal code are concerned, this Court finds that no case of forgery is made out in the instant case. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the blank cheque is filled up and presented for clearance, the same does not constitute an offence of forgery. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the blank cheque is filled up and presented for clearance, the same does not constitute an offence of forgery. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the cheques were duly signed by the complainant and it is the case of the complainant that the same were handed over to the accused as security cheques and out of which one of the cheques was filled up and presented although the entire dues in relation to the tractor and trailor, which was financed by the financer, was cleared by the complainant. However, the complainant has not even whispered a word as to when the dues in relation to the tractor and trailor was cleared by the complainant. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that no case under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal code has been made out in the instant case against the petitioner and accordingly the entire criminal proceedings including order dated 13.6.12 passed in Complaint Case No.193/2009 whereby cognizance has been taken for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lohardaga, is hereby quashed. 20. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Application allowed.