IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No. 2080 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 29, 2010 KAMALJIT SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This revision petition filed at the instance of the complainant, is directed against judgment dated 13.5.2008, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is evidence available on record which indicates that the petitioner had paid money to Ajit Singh and Jaswinder Kaur (respondents No.2 and 3, respectively) and, therefore, the offence of cheating had been committed. Respondents No.2 and 3 have been acquitted for wrong reasons. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The evidence led on behalf of the prosecution as also the Criminal Rev. No. 2080 of 2008 2 defence has been considered, in detail, by the trial court. It has been concluded that it was the complainant who approached the accused and paid the money. The element of inducement or cheating was totally absent. Even on the query of the court, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw the attention of the court towards any material or evidence which would show that the ingredients of cheating, as defined under Section 415, Indian Penal Code, have been satisfied by leading cogent evidence. No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. January 29, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?