The judgment establishes the importance of demonstrating intention to deceive and inducement for the offense of cheating, and the need for a judicious application of mind by the magistrate in criminal proceedings.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Both the applications arise out of same proceedings and the relief claimed in both the applications is the same, hence taken up for final hearing at the admission stage, with consent of all the parties.

3. Both applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in order to challenge the order of issuance of process against them in RCC No. 1640 of 2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.21, Aurangabad, on 31-01-2017. Applicants in both the applications are original accused nos. 2 and 1 respectively. Respondent No. 2 in both the applications is the original complainant. I would prefer to address the parties as they are before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

4. The factual matrix leading to the applications are that the complainant was serving as Associate Professor with Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad in 2009. Accused No. 1 had registered himself for Ph. D. Complainant was assigned as 'guide' for accused No. 1. Complainant has contended that he had helped accused No. 1 in research, guided him for publication of his research papers / thesis. It has been alleged that accused No. 1 and 2 have got the 'guide' of the accused No. 1 changed against the provisions and consent of complainant. They have conspired with each other to get said order on 21-02-2014. Said 'change of guide' is illegal and has caused harm to the reputation of the complainant in educational field. The change of guide has affected the copy right of the complainant on the research papers / thesis. It was necessary to have signature on the progress report of accused No. 1 for the period between 2009 to 2013 or there should have been consent of the complainant. However, accused No. 2 has signed those reports, though he was not 'guide' at that time. There is no mention of date on the reports. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have thereby cheated and prepared false documents. Accused No. 1 is getting benefit of those documents. Therefore, complainant contends that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have committed offence punishable u/s. 420, 465, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

5. It appears that after the complaint was filed, verification has been recorded, when it was found that accused No. 1 is not resident of jurisdiction of concerned Magistrate, the report under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure was called.

6. After the report was submitted, learned Magistrate has passed the order of issuance of process against both the accused. The said order is under challenge in these applications.

7. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants, that learned Magistrate failed to consider the fact that the complaint does not disclose ingredients of the offences mentioned in the complaint. Accused No. 1 had changed his guide because of the differences those arose between him and the complainant. He could see that the complainant was harassing him and because of the same he was not able to complete his Ph. D. within stipulated time. The change of guide was as per the rules and it has been done by the appropriate authority of the University. Complainant had even challenged the said order of change of guide before this Court, but the said writ petition was dismissed. The progress reports of accused No. 1 were not certified by complainant and therefore, they were required to be certified / signed by accused No. 2. A clear note thereof has been filed. Thesis is written by accused No. 1 and therefore he has every right over the same. There was no question of forging of the documents. Unnecessarily both the accused persons have been harassed by the complainant.

8. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of respondent No. 2 / complainant that the 'change of guide' was against the rules and it was with ulterior motive to defame the complainant. Complainant was the guide of accused No. 1 from 2009 to 2014, therefore his signatures ought to ha