The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of cheating under IPC Section 420 requires fraudulent or dishonest inducement causing damage or harm to the property, which must be established by the prosecution.

The present criminal revision application, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”), has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by judgment and order, dated 01.07.2014, passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-III, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2012, arising out of Complaint Case No. 172(C) of 1997, giving rise to Trial No. 118 of 2012.

2. By the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 04.02.2012, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, passed in Complaint Case No. 172 of 1997, while holding the petitioners’ guilty of offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a term of 2 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. On appeal, learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 04.02.2012, by the impugned judgment and order dated 01.07.2014.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel representing the complainant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

4. In order to appreciate the grounds taken in the present revision application, it would be apt to take note of the case of the prosecution in brief. The complainant, namely, Lalan Singh, is the husband of one Lakhrajo Devi. The said Lakhrajo Devi is admittedly daughter of late Raj Dayal Singh. It is alleged that said late Raj Dayal Singh and his brother, namely, Ramanand Singh, had executed gift-deeds, dated 12.01.1983, in favour of the daughter of said late Raj Dayal Singh (wife of the complainant) in respect of the land described hereinbelow:-     

5. The said late Raj Dayal Singh had filed a Title Suit No. 38 of 1985 before the Court of learned Munsif, Bikramganj against the said registered deed, dated 12.01.1983, which was dismissed and accordingly title of said Lakhrajo Devi and possession of the complainant and his wife over the said land continued. Subsequently, the wife of late Raj Dayal Singh, namely, Budhiya Devi (accused No. 1) had executed a sale-deed in favour of Baban Singh (petitioner No. 1) with respect to the same land. It is the case of the complainant that though Budhiya Devi did not have any right, title or possession over the land in question, she executed a sale-deed, dated 16.05.1997.

6. With these allegations complaint petition was filed by the husband of Lakhrajo Devi against Budhiya Devi, Baban Singh (petitioner No. 1), Ram Awadhesh Singh (petitioner No. 2) and Moti Lal Singh (petitioner No. 3), on 26.06.1997, asserting that their conduct constituted offence under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and the petitioners were put on trial on the charge of commission of offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which finally concluded into their conviction under Section 420 of the IPC, as has been noted above. One of the co-accused, namely, Mudrika Singh, was acquitted of the charge. The appeal preferred against the said judgment and order also came to be dismissed, as has been noticed above.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that even if the allegations, made in the complaint petition, and the evidence, adduced at the trial by the prosecution, are taken to be true, no offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out since essential ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC are completely missing.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the co