The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating must be met for a criminal proceeding to be sustained, and the distinction between executing a sale deed claiming the property as one's own and executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized by the owner is crucial in determining the applicability of relevant sections of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Vikesh Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 22.03.2013 in connection with P.C. Case No. 79/2012 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Saraikella.

3. Complaint petition has been filed alleging therein during the last revisional survey the land bearing Plot No. 95 recorded under Khata No.24 of mouza Bada Hariharpur has been recorded in the name of Birad Poddar, (2) Ram Poddar, (3) Baidyanath Poddar, (4) Gour Poddar, (5) Sasadhar Poddar, (6) Jagat Poddar and (7) Guru Charan Poddar in Khata No.24 of mouza Bada Hariharpur. Out of the recorded raiyats only Ram Poddar is alive and other recorded raiyats have died leaving behind their respective heirs. Recorded raiyat Birad Poddar died leaving behind three sons Awadh, Prabodh @ Mansa and Gopal are alive. Recorded raiyat Baidyanath Poddar died leaving behind five sons Bistu, Guru, Bhola, Lala, and Badal. Recorded raiyat Gour Poddar died leaving behind three sons Manohar, Dhanu and Manoj. Recorded raiyat Guru Charan Poddar died leaving behind two, sons Mathan and Nimai. Thecomplainant is the son of recorded raiyat Gour Poddar. The accused No.1 is one of the three sons of recorded raiyats Birad Poddar. Accused No.2 is one of the five sons of recorded raiyat Baidyanath Poddar and accused no. 3 is the son of Prabodh @ Mansa and grand son of recorded raiyat Birad Poddar. The accused No.1 to 3 have clandestinely sold 0.49 decimals of land bearing plot no. 95 recorded under Khata Ne 24 of mouza bada Hariharpur which fact was not known to the complainant or his other co-shares. When on 10/5/12 the labourers of the accused no. 4 came over the schedule land to construction work as advise by a staff of accused No.4 the complainant and his other cosharers came to learn that the accused No.1 to 3 have executed a deed of sale in favour of the accused No.4 transferring the scheduled land. The complainant obtained the certified copy of sale deed No.1532 dated 30/4/12 through which the accused No.1 to 3 have sold the land to the accused No.4 by misrepresenting the facts and false statements. On perusal of the deed it transpired that the accused No.3 has falsely stated that the father is died and he is the only son of his father. As a matter of facts his father Prabodh @ Mansa is still alive who has also got another son named Pradeep. The accused No.1 who permanently reside at purulia never possessed the schedule land falsely claimed in the deed about his physical possession. The accused No.2 is one of the five brother who also died exercise any act of possession. The accused No.4 being fully aware of the fact that the vendors of sale deed No.1532 dated 13/4/12 were never in possession of the schedule land nor they were competent persons to execute sale deed and the real several other owners of the scheduled land who were in physical possession were kept in dark and got the sale deed executed by the accused persons No.1 to 3 and thereby all the accused persons committed and caused wrongful loss to the complainant, The accused No.1 to 3 dishonestly for their wrongful gain have executed the sale deed No.1532 dated 30/4/12 by giving false statementsregarding their ownership and the accused No.4 has caused wrongful loss to the complainant and his other co-sharers.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a company. He further submits that offence under Sections 467/468/471 of I.P.C. so far as this petitioner is concerned, are not made out as the petitioner has not forged any document nor has used any such documents himself to gain wrongfully. He further submits that the petitioner is purchaser of the land in question and has entered into an agreement on the basis of representa