The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC requires fraudulent or dishonest inducement, deception, and the intention to cause harm. The absence of criminal intent in the transaction influenced the court's decision to quash the criminal proceedings.

By Court: Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Awanikant Prasad, learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 126 of 2002 including the order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. It appears that a complaint case was instituted by the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 in which it was stated that the petitioner was known to the opposite party No. 2 from before and that the petitioner was running a transport business and had inducted several tenants in his building. On account of intimacy of the petitioner with the complainant/ opposite party No. 2, the petitioner had approached the complainant to given him a loan of Rs. 30,000/-on the assurance that the same would be returned back as early as possible. It was further submitted therein that the petitioner had stated to the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 that he had huge amount lying in Bokaro Steel Limited and since on account of his non-payment of his bills, his capital amount is blocked and as such he was in need of money for payment to his staff and labourers and for other expenses. An amount of Rs. 8,500/-and an amount of Rs. 14,000/-was given to the petitioner on two separate dates, but when inspite of lapse of few months, the petitioner did not return the amount he was approached by the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 and ultimately he gave an undertaking in writing on stamp paper that he has taken Rs. 22,500/-from the complainant and the same shall be returned back within a period of 6 months. It has further been stated that inspite of the undertaking given by the petitioner when the amount was not returned back, pleader's notice was served upon the petitioner to which reply was given in which it was stated that he had taken a loan of Rs. 15,000/-and he had also paid by three installment of Rs. 9000/-and only Rs. 6,000/-is lying balance with him. On being deceived by the petitioner inspite of his assurance that the amount of loan would be returned to the complainant/ opposite party No. 2, he has filed a complaint case which was registered as C.P. Case No. 126 of 2002.

4. After initiation of the complaint case, an enquiry was conducted u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.) by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as also his witnesses and pursuant thereto vide order dated 6.8.2002, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro was pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that perusal of the complaint petition does not reveal any criminal intent on the part of the petitioner to cheat the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 and it has also falsely been alleged by the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 that the amount is lying with the petitioner. He has further submitted that no offence of cheating is made out and if the complainant has any grievance he has an option for redressal of his grievance before an appropriate civil forum.

6. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that on the assurance of the petitioner that the loan shall be returned back within the shortest possible time, Rs. 22,500/-was given to the petitioner by the complainant/ opposite party No. 2, but inspite of a written undertaking, the amount was not returned back, rather it has been falsely alleged by the petitioner that only Rs. 6,000/-is lying due to him of the complainant/ opposite party No. 2. In such view of the matter, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that in the c