JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance dated 03.02.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.2879 of 2015. 2. Plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a bare reading of the complaint and the evidence of the enquiry witness do not constitute the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. 3. Mr. Sunil Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay in transfer of registration of the car in favour of the complainant would not make the petitioner liable for prosecution in a criminal case under section 420 IPC. 4. Briefly stated, the complainant-Sumeet Kishore has filed the complaint which has been registered as Complaint Case No.2879 of 2015. He has pleaded that the accused, who is the petitioner, approached him to sell his car for Rs.1,20,000/-and promised to transfer the car in his name after cancellation of hypothecation. However, he did not transfer the car and after about 4 years came to him and promised that he would return the money and take back the car. But the accused did not return the money and when he contacted him over mobile, the accused threatened him. However, he has admitted that the petitioner was in need of money and he has tendered physical possession of the car to him. The car was hypothecated to Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Ltd. is also admitted by the complainant [para-2] and the petitioner was transferred to several places including Indusind Bank [para-4, 9 etc.] and Bandhan Bank [para-10]. There is no allegation by the complainant that the petitioner with an intention to cheat him never took any step for cancellation of hypothecation with Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Ltd. The enquiry witnesses have also not spoken about intention of the petitioner to deceive the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly at the initial stage itself. 5. The offence under section 415 IPC can be said to be made out only when it is prima-facie established that the accused with an intention to deceive any person has induced the victim to deliver any property 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. Section 24 IPC defines the expression 'dishonestly'. Section 24 IPC defines the expression 'dishonestly'. It provides that whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing dishonestly. Section 25 IPC defines the expression 'fraudulently'. It provides that a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intention to defraud but not otherwise. In “Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.” (2006) 6 SCC 736 , the Supreme Court has observed as under : “32. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are : (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission, (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person 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.” 6. A bare reading of the complaint and the preliminary evidence brought on record through the enquiry witness do not disclose that the petitioner had requisite intention to cheat the complainant at the initial stage. No doubt, at the stage of section 204 Cr.P.C all that the court has to see is whether a prima-facie case has been made out or not, the trial Judge in its order dated 03.02.2017 has, however, not indicated the bare requirement in law how an offence under section 420 IPC has been made out against the petitioner. The order taking cognizance is mechanical exercise of powers by the trial Judge is reflected also in the fact that the court has taken cognizance under section 420 r/w 120-B IPC; an offence of conspiracy must involve more than one person. In the complaint petition the petitioner is the only person arrayed as an accused and there is no allegation of conspiracy to cheat the complainant. The court has simply reproduced para 14 of the complaint petition. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, more particularly, in absence of foundational facts constituting the offence punishable under section 420 IPC, I find the order taking cognizance dated 03.02.2017 illegal and, accordingly, it is quashed. 8. Cr. The court has simply reproduced para 14 of the complaint petition. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, more particularly, in absence of foundational facts constituting the offence punishable under section 420 IPC, I find the order taking cognizance dated 03.02.2017 illegal and, accordingly, it is quashed. 8. Cr. M.P. No.1828 of 2017 is allowed.