IMPORTANT POINT
The essential elements of cheating under Section 420 IPC require proof of deception, fraudulent inducement to deliver property, and the accused's dishonest intention at the time of the inducement, which must be established for a successful prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015 and for opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P. No.1126 of 2013 and Mr. Indrajit Sinha through Video Conferencing along with Mr. Rishav Kumar, who is present in the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.1126 of 2013 and for opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015 and Mr. Fahad Allam and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State in Cr.M.P. Nos. 1072 of 2015 and 1126 of 2013 respectively.

2. In Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.04.2013 in connection with Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No.585/2012, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that opposite party no.2-Rishi Pandey is the Director of M/s Sigma E Solution Private Limited, who used to sell and repair of laptop, desktop, software and computer and he is having good reputation and seeing the his good reputation, the petitioner-Sandeep Jaiswal @ Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal made a cheating with him to give benefit of his own company, namely, Star Seven Company as the petitioner has appointed on the job on 07.11.2011 as a service engineer of the company of the informant and the petitioner did not disclose the fact that he is the owner of Star Seven Computer and after taking the job/employment, he started to make business correspondence of Dhanbad area and the business correspondence of the informant company was used by the petitioner company for his company and document of the customers was used to hide by the petitioner and in place of same, he used to correspondence his own company, namely Star Seven Computers and also supplied goods through his own company due to it the informant suffered a loss in Lac of Rupees and on 05.06.2012, when the informant went to the office cum residence of the petitioner and demanded his laptop, computers, then the petitioner abused the informant and threatened not to come in his office.

4. In Cr.M.P. No.1126 of 2013, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.02.2013 in connection with C.P. Case No.1307 of 2012, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

5. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant- Sandeep Jaiswal @ Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal was serving his company, namely, Star Seven Computers in I.S.M., Campus since last three years. It was further alleged that in the last week of August, 2011, System and Hardware Engineer Mr. Subhas left his job from the I.S.M. Campus and on the basis of request of accused persons, till the re-appointment of a new System Engineer, the complainant continued his service in I.S.M. Campus. It was also alleged that because of un-uniform payment, such as Rs.7,800/- and Rs.5,880/- was made payment by the accused persons to the complainant and because of that fact on 31.03.2012, the complainant stopped his work in I.S.M. Campus. It was alleged that on 26.05.2012, accused no.2 sent a message to the complainant that the complainant was the employee of the company, but he was terminated due to his misconduct with the company. It was further alleged that the complainant replied of the same and denied all the frivolous and fictitious allegation levelled against him and, thereafter, accused persons from different phone numbers started threatening the complainant on different ways. It was also alleged that the complainant had informed the matter to the police station concerned on 09.06.2012.

6. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matters of Cr.M.P. No.1072 of 2015 as well as Cr.M.P. No.1126 of 2013 are counter blast of both the cases. He submits that both the cases have been registered on the same date. He further submits that the petitioner-Sandeep Jais