The offence of cheating requires deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and intention to cause hurt to the person in body, mind, reputation, or property. A court ordinarily has jurisdiction to try offences committed within its local jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

G.B. Pattnaik, J. - Petitioners are the accused persons in a complaint case bearing number ICC 136 of 1982, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack.

2. A complaint was fried by opposite party No. I making allegations against the petitioners to the effect that they had committed offences under Sections 380: 324: 510: 109, 323: 420 and 379, Indian Penal Code. After taking the initial statement of the complainant by order dated 15.4.82. the learned Magistrate took Code against of the offences u/s 420: 323: 500 and 504 and 379, Indian Penal Code against the accused petitioners and issued summons to the accused fixing their appearance to 10.5.1982. The petitioners in this revision have invoked the inherent power of this Court to quash the said order taking Code against and to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate.

3. Mr. Mohany, the learned counsel for the petitioners, raises three submissions in support of the prayer to quash the cognisance, namely :

(i) No part of the cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Cuttack and the offences, if any having been committed at Kanpur, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, has no jurisdiction;

(ii) The allegations made in the complaint petition indicate that the dispute is of civil nature and, therefore, no criminal offence can be said to have been committed for any act of commission or omission of the petioners as alleged in the complaint petition; and

(iii) The averments in the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant recorded by the Magistrate taken on their face value, as they are, without any addition or substraction do not make out any offences particularly, the offences for which cognisance has been taken and, therfore, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, this Court should quash the criminal proceeding.

Mr. Pasayat, the learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 1 on the other hand submits that the allegations in the complaint petition together with the initial statement of the complainant to make out the offences for which cognisance has been taken and, therefore there is no case for exercise of inherent power of this Court to quash the order of cognisance. He further submits that the offence of cheating under Sec 420, Indian Penal Code admittedly having been committed within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, even if all other offences are committed outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, at Cuttack, by virtue of Section 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, will have the jurisdiction to enquire into the case and try the offences.

4. Before examining the rival contentions raised by the learned-counsel for the petitioners and opposite party No. 1, it is necessary to bear in mind the limitation in the matter of exercise of the inherent power to interfere with an order taking cognisance. It is an accepted principle of law that the High Court would exercise is inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding in an appropriate case to prevent an abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. No inflexible rule can be laid down but yet in some judicial decisions certain illustrations have been given to indicate where such inherent jurisdiction can be exercised. In the case of Satrughana Dalabehera and others v. State 1983 C.L.R. 303 may learned brother Justice Behera, has exhaustively dealt with this aspect. I would merely extract a portion of the said judgment :

" Ordinarily a criminal proceeding initiated against an accused person must be tried under provisions of the Code and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. Some of the categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction to quash