To establish the offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC, the complainant must show that he was induced to do or omit to do a certain act, which caused or was likely to cause him harm or damage.

The revision petitioner herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the respondent herein for an offence under Section 415 read with 417 of IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore, after recording sworn statement of the petitioner, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the revision petitioner herein has preferred this criminal revision.

2. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is one of the Founder Trustee of the P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu and Sons Charities, a public charity trust which was established in the year 1926 and a scheme of administration was framed by the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore in O.S.No.145 of 1935 by its decree dated 29.02.1936. According to the complainant, the decree under Chapter VII has laid down that the Board of Trustees are vested with the duty of the management of the property and funds of the trusts and shall have the full control over the financial charges and that the board shall arrange for the maintenance of proper accounts for the annual and concurrent monthly audit. The accused who is one of the Founder Trustees was elected on 111. 2005. as Managing Trustee for a term of five years. In the meeting held on 111. 2005, it was also resolved to have an audit committee to discharge certain duties including the above referred duties of the Board. As the accused failed to adhere to the decision of the Board, the complainant along with two other trustees issued a letter dated 211. 2007 to the accused to call for a meeting of the Board with the subject for constituting an audit committee as per resolution dated 111. 2005. The accused also called for a meeting of the Board through a notice dated 112. 2007 and the meeting was to be held on 212. 2007. In the meeting, The Agenda contained the subject of constitution of Audit committee also. In the meeting held on 212. 2007, it was resolved to constitute an Audit committee though the accused descended for the constitution of an Audit Committee. It was also resolved to constitute an Audit committee and also frame the functions of the audit committee. It was further decided to convene the audit committee on the quarterly basis and the first meeting was decided to convene in January, 2008. The accused sent a notice of meeting of the audit committee dated 19.01.2008 informing that the meeting will be held on 23.01.2008 at 10.00 a.m., at the Managing Trustee office, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. Subsequently, the accused sent a letter dated 22.01.2008 to all Members of the Audit Committee informing that the Audit Committee meeting scheduled to be held on 22.01.2003 is postponed to a latter date as directed by the Court. According to the complainant, it is a false information that the meeting was postponed as directed by the Court. By a false representation and by postponing the meeting, the members of the audit committee were intentionally induced to omit to do their duties fixed by the Board on 212. 2007 and thereby the accused cheated the members of the committee. It is the further allegation of the complainant that the accused by making the audit committee defunct derived a wrongful gain by deriving unchecked powers and went to the extent of committing all the Institutions of Higher education under the Charities to the formation of a private body by unauthorisedly issuing a letter dated 06.02.2008 to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu without any power to do so.

3. Mr. Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate instead of seeing whether prima facie case is made out or not, erred in going to the merits of the case and dismissing the complaint. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the accused had dishonestly made a statement that the audit committee scheduled to be held on 23.01.2008 was being postponed to later date as directed by the Court. The letter forwarded by the accused did not carry out any detai