Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—By means of this criminal revision, the revisionists have prayed for setting aside the order dated 13.3.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Case No. 1362/9 of 2013 (State v. Padma Jain and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1149 of 2011, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffar Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar.

2. It appears that Ms Padma Jain purchased one warehouse (godown) by way of registered sale-deed dated 7.2.2011. It is alleged that vendor and vendee showed this constructed warehouse (godown) as a vacant plot in order to evade stamp duty and thereby caused revenue loss to the Government exchequer. One Subodh Kumar Jain, respondent No. 2/complainant lodged an FIR despite the fact that he was not the party to the said transaction in any manner. This FIR was registered on 1.11.2011 at P.S. Kotwali Muzaffar Nagar vide Case Crime No. 1149 of 2011, under Sections 420,467,468,471,379 IPC and 120-B IPC. The matter was investigated and the Investigating Officer initially submitted the final report in the matter on the premise that the dispute relates to the evasion of stamp duty for which proceedings were already pending before the competent authority but subsequently the investigation was transferred, legal opinion obtained from the senior prosecutor and charge-sheet under Section 420 IPC was filed against five accused including vendee Padma Jain, her husband Sunil Kumar Jain, her son Sarad Jain, alleged middle man V.K. Jain and his son Anmol Jain. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC vide order dated 13.3.2013. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Mr Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and have perused the entire material available on record.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out as the ingredients of the same are totally absent. The dispute is related to alleged evasion of stamp duty which has already been adjudicated by the competent authorities in separate proceedings initiated on the separate complaint of opposite party No. 2 himself. As far as criminal case under Section 420 IPC is concerned, opposite party No. 2 has no locus standi to initiate this criminal proceedings. The collector has also not given sanction to initiate proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (in short Stamp Act) as required under Section 70 of the Indian Stamp Act.

5. To the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA have submitted that the revisionists have deliberately withheld the information while executing the sale-deed. Evasion of necessary particulars was nothing but a ploy to evade the stamp duty. It is further argued that revenue loss caused to the State would bring this dispute within the ambit of Section 420 IPC and no sanction is required for the prosecution of accused persons in this case.

6. Considering the contents of the FIR and the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that Section 420 IPC may not apply in this case. This section talks of cheating with intention of inducing a person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.

7. “Valuable Security” is defined under Section 30 of the I.P.C. It is evident that to bring any instrument within the definition of Section 420 IPC ingredients of Section 451 IPC must be available i.e. unless ingredients of cheating are present no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to be made out. The offence of cheating is established when accused thereby induces a person to deliver any property