IMPORTANT POINT
In order to constitute all offence u/s 420 IPC there must be some inducement by Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section accused to complainant at the initial stage.

JUDGMENT

N.K. Bhattacharyya, J. - By this revision the accused-petitioner has come up before this Court praying for quashing the Complaint Case No. 175C of 1993 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Howrah, and also for setting aside the order dated 2nd February, 1994 passed by the said learned Magistrate in the said case.

2. The fact silhouetted behind this case is that the Opposite Party No. 1 herein filed a petition of complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, alleging, inter the, that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s. R.A Pipe Fitting Co. of 12/5, Musalman Para Lane, P.S. Bantra, District Howrah, and deals in the business of iron pipe and pipe fittings. The complainant-Opposite Party No. 1 received a letter from the accused-petitioner herein on 11.10.1991 asking for delivery of certain materials on terms that payments should be deferred by ninety days from the date of the delivery of the material. The complainant-Opposite Party met the accused-petitioner on 27th July, 1991 at Madurai and talked about the letter for supply of the materials. On believing the representation of the accused-petitioner, the complainant-Opposite Party after coming back to Howrah started supplying pipe fittings on 11.11.1991 and submitted his bills for payment. The complainant-Opposite Party was not paid the price of the materials supplied tillU.2.1992 and being apprehensive, the complainant-Opposite Party made tagids for payment and after deferring such payments the accused-petitioner made over three cheques bearing Nos. 093977

dated 15.7.1992 for Rs. 50,000/-, 093978 dated 30.8.1992 for Rs. 50,000/-, and 092979 dated 15.8.1992 for Rs. 52,000/only on Indian Banks, T.V.S. Nagar Branch, Madurai, in favour of the complainant-Opposite Party. The said three cheque were tendered to the Bank through the Federal Bank Limited, Howrah Branch at Bantra, Howrah, but the cheques amounting to Rs. 50,000/- were returned as the amount was not duly covered. The third' cheques was returned with the endorsement that the accused asked for stopping payment. By a letter dated 14th October, 1992 the accused-petitioner promised payment but as the payment was not made, again the complainant-Opposite Party made tagid by a lawyer's letter dated 2nd November, 1992. From time to time the accused-petitioner by different letters promised payment and on 18.1.1993 the complainant-Opposite Party demanded immediate payment of money from the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner denied all transactions. Hence the petition of complaint. Summons was issued after taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate. Evidence was gone into and the learned Magistrate framed a charge against the accused petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, though prayer was made before the learned Magistrate for discharge of the accused-petitioner as there was no ingredient of cheating as contemplated under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Tapan Kumar, Dutt, learned Advocate, contended by referring to the petition of complaint and the deposition of the witness that the petition of complaint and the deposition do not show any initial inducement by the accused-petitioner to the Complainant Opposite Party and as such the ingredient of Section 420, IPC being absent the proceeding should be quashed. He further contended that at the initial stage there was no inducement. According to him, as there was no case of initial inducement by the accused-petitioner to the complainant Opposite Party, the proceeding for the offence under Section 420, IPC is not competent and liable to be quashed. In this connection, he referred to some decisions, to wit, V.V.L.N. Chari v. N.A. Martin (Kerala)1 P, G.K. Mahanty v. Pratap Kishore Das (Orissa2, Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishnu Kumar Surekha3, Radha Raman Sahu v. Trilochan Nanda (Orissa)4 Mr. Dutt contended that in view of the ratio that has been deduced in those