The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, including dishonest intention and inducement, must be established in the petition of complaint to sustain a criminal prosecution.

( 1 ) 1. By filing this application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, one Sri Apurba Kumar nandy, petitioner herein, has come up before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceeding being Case No. 1091-C of 2000 under section 420 of the Indian penal Code now pending before the Id. Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Howrah.

( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the filing of this application are as under.

( 3 ) THE present petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Narayan Engineering construction. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the above complaint case under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was filed before the Court of the Id. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah alleging therein that the complainant company namely M/s. Quality Engineering (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. has supplied the well power and remote control etc. to one M/s. Tools and Abrasives centre and as per the request of the complainant, the Tools and Abrasives centre delivered two pieces of well power 4400 Amps. , whose prices were Rs. 62,400/- including the sales-tax and two pieces of Remote Control, whose prices were Rs. 2,750/- each on 15th day of May, 1998 to M/s. Narayan Engineering construction.

( 4 ) IT has further been alleged in the said complaint that after receiving the aforesaid electrical goods from the Tools and Abrasives Centre, M/s. Narayan engineering Construction did not pay the amount i. e. , Rs. 71,281/- and the aforesaid amount has been deducted by the Tools and Abrasives Centre from the complainant-company i. e. M/s. Quality Engineering (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd.

( 5 ) IT has further been alleged that the Quality Engineering (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. , thereafter sent a letter to the complainant on 4. 8. 99 for enquiring into the matter and thereafter the complainant went to the place of Narayan Engineering construction and met with its proprietor Mr. Apurba Kumar Nandy and the said accused Mr. Nandy issued a bearer cheque to the complainant without giving any seal and stamp of the bank. Subsequently, the matter was taken up with Mr. A. K. Nandy when he assured that he will pay the said amount within six months, but after expiry of the aforesaid six months, the said Mr. Nandy, petitioner herein, flatly refused to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner without any justified reason and he also went on denying the transaction in respect of the said materials with some ulterior motive and tried to cheat the petitioner.

( 6 ) IT has further been alleged that on receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the learned Court below has issued process against the present petitioner and after receiving the same he has come up before this Court with the aforesaid prayer for quashing of the criminal case.

( 7 ) IT has also been alleged that although the petitioner had taken delivery of the said machines alongwith the remote control as alleged in the said complaint, yet, the said machines were taken delivery of by the present petitioner from the Tools and Abrasives Centre who was the actual authority with whom the petitioner had made dealings and in the instant case, the Tools and Abrasives centre being the actual claimant of the same has not filed the instant complaint before the learned Court below and the said complaint is now filed by the opposite party No. 2 herein, Sri Tirthankar Ganguly who claims to be the authorised representative of the M/s. Quality Engineering (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner had no dealings whatsoever with said Sri Tirthankar Ganguly and as such he is never authorised to file any complaint laying any claim against the present petitioner.

( 8 ) IT has also been alleged that immediately after the delivery of the said two machines including the remote control there was a break down of one of the machines during the guarantee period and for such reason the petitioner had to suffer a huge loss inasmuch as the petitioner had to borrow the machines from other contractors on r