Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the orders of learned Sessions Judge, Nahan, dated 18.6.2003 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, set aside the summoning order dated 11.6.2001, made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, on a complaint lodged by the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Case of the complainant, as disclosed in his complaint was:

3. Respondents pretended that the concern M/s. U.P. Line Chemicals Ltd. is a Nationally reputed company. They wanted to purchase lime stone and induced the complainant to supply the same. The complainant supplied lime stone worth Rs. 4,29,906 to the factory of the accused-respondents located in Bijnor in Uttar Pradesh. However, payments were not made. It is in this background that a complaint was lodged.

4. It was admitted position that lime stone was supplied by the complainant, at the request of the accused-respondents. The learned trial Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence, directed issuance of the summons to the accused-respondents.

5. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, who allowed the revision petition and set aside the summoning order.

6. Dis-satisfied the complainant is in this petition.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.

8. It is no where the case of the petitioner that any false representation was made by the respondents by which he was induced to supply lime stone. Only case of the petitioner was that he supplied lime stone to the respondents, which supply was acknowledged, but the payments were not made within sixty days, as agreed upon by the respondents.

9. Learned Sessions Judge, from reading of the complaint and preliminary evidence produced by the complainant, came to the conclusion that it could not be said tifat there was any dishonest intention on the part of the accused. Learned Sessions Judge took note of the fact that some payments were in fact made by the respondents. Payment of Rs. 55,100 was made before 20th February, 2002 and another payment of Rs. 1,11,000 was made on different dates, after filing of the complaint by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner realying upon Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724, contended that the facts of the present case squarely falls within the mischief of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In Mahadeo Prasad ratio laid down is that if a complainant is induced to part with his goods, on the understanding that the accused would pay the price for the goods of delivery but did not pay and if he had no intention to pay when promise was made but merely represents that he would do so in order to induce the complainant to part with the goods then the mischief would be covered by the definition of cheating under Section 415 IPC. Ratio of this case does not help the petitioner. Section 415 of the Code defines 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"." Explanation to this section very clearly indicates that concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

10. The ingredients, which are necessary to constitute an offence of cheating are: (a) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person deceiving him; (b) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver or part with any property; (c) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do