Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this Petition for quashing FIR No. 13/2015 Registered at Police Station Nangal Rajawatan District-Dausa for offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

2. The allegation levelled in the FIR was that nomination form to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat Hapawas for the Panchayat Election 2015 was filled by petitioner on 19.01.2015, whereby the fact of three children was concealed amounting to furnishing of false declaration and thereby contesting election even when the petitioner was not qualified to do so.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Amita Trivedi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. passed in the S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2763/2011, decided on 30.07.2012, reported in 2013(2) RLW 1252 (Raj.) the relevant portion as per the counsel for the petitioner is as follows:-

"Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the F.I.R. impugned and the case diary, it is apparent that the highest allegation of the complainant in this case is that the petitioner No.1 whilst filling up the nomination form deliberately mentioned the name of her father-in-law in the column where her husband name was required to be mentioned. This is the highest case of the prosecution as per the FIR registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 120B IPC.

For the offence of preparing a forged document, which is punishable under Section 467 IPC, the document in issue should be a false document as defined under Section 464 IPC, which reads as below:

"464. Making a false document- A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-

First- Who dishonestly or fraudulently-

(a) Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;

(b) Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;

(c) Affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;

(d) Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception prectised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record of the nature of the alteration."

For the offence of cheating, there should be an averment of the prosecution that the accused by using fraudulent means induced the person so cheated to deliver some valuable security etc. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 8 SCC- 751 whilst dealing with the offences of cheating and forgery held as below:

"7. The question that therefore, arises for consideration is whether the material on record prima facie constitutes any offences against the accused. The contention of the appellant is that if the allegations made in the complainant and FIR, even if accepted to be true in entirety did not disclose the ingredients of any offence of forgery (Sections 467 and 471) or cheating (Section 420) or insult (Section 504) or wrongful restraint (se