The absence of deception or dishonest inducement negates the establishment of cheating under IPC Sections 420 and 120-B.

Order :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant Misc. Petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioners Parmanand Adwani and Mangi Lal seeking quashing of the order dated 21-05-2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Pali in Criminal Revision No.77/2013 as well as the order dated 19-08-2015 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pali in Criminal Original Case No.184/2012, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 420 & 120-B of the IPC and issued process against them.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case would be that the respondents Smt. Geeta Devi and Mangal Singh filed a criminal complaint based on which an FIR was lodged. It was stated in the complaint that one Smt. Chhaniya happened to be mother-in-law of the complainant Smt. Geeta and the other accused Radha, Pushpa and Laxmi are her sister-in-laws. Her father-in-law and husband had died intestated. There is a shop situated at Mill Gate, Pali in the name of her father-in-law and the said shop was given to respondent No.2 Mangal Singh by Smt. Geeta to take care of it and later on 25-09-2009, the same was sold to him by way of execution of a registered sale deed and the possession was also handed over to him. The complainant Smt. Geeta and Mangal Singh were arrested on 11-12-2009 in relation to a dispute of the shop in question and whereupon they came to know that the said shop had been sold to the petitioner Parmanand by the vendor Smt. Chhaniya through a registered sale deed dated 18-09-2009 and possession had been handed over to him.

2.1. The matter was thoroughly investigated by the police and whereafter it was concluded that the allegations were false and it was a civil dispute and therefore a negative final report was submitted. The basis of the negative final report are as under:-

(a) The father-in-law of the complainant Smt. Geeta, was the owner of the shop in question who died intestated, therefore the vendor, Smt. Chhaniya, by a propriety right over it and in the capacity of absolute ownership, sold the property to Parmanand.

(b)The complainant, Smt. Geeta Devi, had stayed with her in-laws for only two years, after which she left their house. She allegedly stole ornaments belonging to her mother-in-law, and the couple thereafter began residing separately from the in-laws.

(c) The complainant, Smt. Geeta Devi, returned to her in-laws' house after nine years. By that time, Smt. Chhaniya had already sold the property to the petitioner, Parmanand. Smt. Chhaniya is the legally wedded wife of the actual owner of the property, who had since passed away, and therefore, she was within her rights to sell the property to the petitioner, Parmanand.

3. The complainant lodged a protest, upon which an inquiry was initiated. During the inquiry, the complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate heard the complainant and thereafter took cognizance of the offence.

3.1 The petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision; however, the subject matter of the case, as well as the legal and factual aspects involved, were not appropriately considered. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 19-08-2015.

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter.

4.1 It is an admitted fact situation that the complainant Smt. Geeta Devi does not have an absolute proprietary right or title over the shop in question, but she claim to have obtained rights after the death of her husband and father-in-law. The fact that the respondent No.2 Smt. Geeta Devi had left matrimonial home and started to reside with her husband at a separate place is also discernible from the material available. Smt. Chhaniya, who is the seller of the property to the petitioner No.1 Parmanad may have an impression that after death of her husband, his property had divested in her and, therefore, under this