JUDGMENT :

Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J.

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 71/2017 whereby the revision petition against the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur in FR No. 891/2016, taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 120-B of I.P.C., has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that Ramchandra lodged an F.I.R. No. 79/2016 dated 15.03.2016 at the Police Station Phulera, Jaipur (Rural) alleging therein that the present petitioners, his daughter & son-in-law respectively, playing fraud upon him, got executed a gift deed dated 17.02.2016 (registered on 18.02.2016) under the pretext of execution of papers for enhancement of pension. The police after investigation submitted negative Final Report No. 891/2016 finding the dispute to be of civil nature. On submission of protest petition, after examining the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 & Section 202 Cr.P.C. respectively, the learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 120-B IPC vide order dated 15.02.2017 which has been affirmed by the learned revisional Court vide its order dated 25.04.2019.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out inasmuch as no deception/fraud was played by the petitioners upon the complainant who was instigated by his son to lodge the F.I.R. Drawing attention of this Court towards the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Agency while submitting negative Final Report, learned counsel contended that since other daughters of the complainant have categorically stated that the complainant has executed the registered gift deed in favour of the petitioner No. 1, no offence, as alleged, is made out. Referring the provisions of Section 464 IPC, learned counsel submitted that since there is no allegation against the accused-petitioners of making the document in question, i.e., registered gift deed; which, undisputedly, has been executed by the complainant himself, no offence under Section 467 or 468 I.P.C. is made out against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Sardar Ali Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 626, in support of his submissions.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that in order to show her bona fide, the petitioner No. 1 has stated during the course of investigation that she was ready to get the gift deed executed in her favour cancelled and she reiterates her submission before this Court also in order to purchase peace in the family. He, therefore, prayed that this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed and the order impugned be quashed.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal misc. petition.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that it contains specific allegation against the present petitioners of getting the gift deed executed under the pretext of execution of documents for enhancement of pension. Therefore, the F.I.R. discloses commission of offence under Section 420 I.P.C.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police has, after investigation, submitted negative Final Report relying on the statements of other daughters of the complainant and the learned Court erred in taking cognizance ignoring the same, does not deserve acceptance as it is trite that the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, is not bound by the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Agency in its report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In the present case, a perusal of the order impugned reveals that the learned court below, after appreciating the material collected by the In