1. it has been recorded that notice be sent through ordinary process was received by the Security Guard, Tunnu Das and the case was posted for Admission, awaiting appearance meaning thereby the notice was taken to have been served upon opposite party No.2.. In spite of that opposite party No.2 never chose to appear in this case.

2. Accordingly, heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. This revision application is directed against the order dated 1.12.2003, passed by the then C.J.M., Ranchi in G.R. No.1165 of 2002 (Lalpur P.S. Case No.50 of 2002) whereby application filed for discharge from the accusation punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was rejected.

4. The case of the prosecution as has been made out in the F.I.R. is that the informant is the partner of firm, known as “At Glance” to which this petitioner is other partner who without the knowledge of the informant took the loan in the name of the firm from the Central Bank of India, Lalpur Branch, Ranchi.

5. Further it has been alleged that the petitioner had also taken loan from other borrowers. On such allegation a case was registered as Lalpur P.S. Case No.50 of 2002, under Sections 426 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The case was taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offences was taken under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently an application was filed for discharging the petitioner from the accusation punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that no material is there for constituting offence either under Section 406 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but that prayer was rejected vide order dated 1.12.2003 by holding that sufficient materials are there on record to frame charge under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and that charge can be framed even on the material on record capable of inferring strong suspicion about the commission of the offence. That order is under challenge in this application.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, I do find that on an accusation that the petitioner being one of the partners of the firm took loan in the name of firm from the Bank and also from the other borrowers is being prosecuted for an offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal code, but no such offence is made out even if the allegations levelled against the petitioner are taken to be true. Definition of cheating has been given under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows :-

415. 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”.

8. On bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it does appear that the following ingredients be there for constituting offence of cheating.

(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.

8. At this stage, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168] wherein it has been held as under :

“14. On a re