The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale-deeds executed by the petitioners did not constitute false documents and therefore, the offences under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code were not attracted.

By the Court.- Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2.

2. This application is directed against the order dated 19.4.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih affirming the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2007 whereby and whereunder prayer of the petitioners for discharging them from the accusation under Sections 420, 467, 468/34, of the Indian Penal Code was rejected.

3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of.

4. It is the case of the complainant/informant that the complainant. Sheikh Niyazuddin @ Santu, Sheikh Anwar @ Bittu, Bibi Fatima and Bibi Doli executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the petitioners on 5.6.2004 with respect to, their land pertaining to khata No.1. Plot Nos. 569, 570, 576, 584 and 586 measuring total area of 98 decimal situated at village Dhariadih. Police Station and District - Giridih. On the following day, i.e. 6.6.2004 an agreement was also executed stipulating therein that if the petitioners will execute sale-deed, they will inform about it to the informant/complainant so that consideration amount be fixed in their presence and the sale proceed be divided equally between the informant and the accused persons. In spite of that, petitioners in order to grab the aforesaid land executed sale-deeds in favour of their respective wives in the year 2006 showing consideration amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- which was less than the market value and that the petitions never paid a single farthing to the informant. On such allegation, a case was registered as Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the aforesaid offences was taken. Thereupon an application for discharge was filed before the Court below which was rejected. Against that order, Revision was preferred vide, Cr. Rev. No. 16 of 2009 which also got dismissed. Both the orders passed by the trial Court and also by the revisional Court are under challenge.

5. Mr. Modi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that accepting the entire allegations in its entirety to be true, no offence either of forgery or of cheating is made out as the petitioners had never been alleged to have induced the informant/ complainant fraudulently and dishonestly to execute power of attorney in favour of the petitioners nor they in the face of allegation can be said to have deceived the informant and as such, no offence of cheating is made out.

6. Learned counsel in this respect further submits that even if the allegation that the petitioners did sell the land without informing the informant at a lower price is accepted to be true it will not constitute any offence, rather it will be a simple case of breach of agreement, for which the petitioners cannot be prosecuted criminally.

7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that the parties have entered into an agreement where there was stipulation that whenever, the petitioners in whose favour power of attorney had been executed, will sell the land, they will be informing the informant but the petitioners without informing the informant sold the land and that too at lessor value and thereby the petitioners can be said to have committed offence of cheating.

8. In the context of the submission, one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of cheating which reads as follows :

"Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any persons shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or