JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is preferred for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in criminal case No. 651 of 1980 Mohammed Hanif v. Mst. Kherun Nisa and others. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are these. Mohammed Sayeed was the owner of two plots covering patta Nos. 1297 and 1298 in Pipar City. After the death of Mohammad Sayeed, petitioners No. 3 Mst. Kherun Nisa became the owner of these plots. Non-petitioner Mohammed Hanif purchased this plot on 25-2-1965 for a sum of Rs. 600/- from petitioner No. 3 Mst. Kherun Nisa had also got a sale-deed written. However, the sale-deed could not be registered. Thereafter, she divided this plot into two parts and sold them to petitioners No. 1 and 2 by a registered sale-deed, in 1980. It is further alleged that the subsequent sale-deeds we executed with a view to cause loss to the non-petitioner. It is also stated that the non-petitioner was in possession of the disputed land. On these allegations and evidence of the like nature under sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C, The learned Magistrate registered the case under section 420 and 423 read with 34, I.P.C. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the non-petitioner and perused the record of the case carefully. 4. Aggrieved by this order dated July 26, 1980, this petition was preferred, which is being treated as revision on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the facts, as disclosed in the complaint and substantiated by the subsequent evidence under sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. do not disclose any offence whatsoever. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioner argued that though no offence under section 420, IPC is disclosed yet an offence under section 423 is evidently made out because there is a false statement about the ownership of the plot. I have considered the rival contentions carefully. 7. Evidently, no case under section 420, I.P.C. could be made out because there were no allegations of cheating nor the non-petitioner was deceived to part with any property. It may be remembered that the grievance of the non-petitioner is solely with regard to the subsequent sale-deeds. I have considered the rival contentions carefully. 7. Evidently, no case under section 420, I.P.C. could be made out because there were no allegations of cheating nor the non-petitioner was deceived to part with any property. It may be remembered that the grievance of the non-petitioner is solely with regard to the subsequent sale-deeds. The essential ingredient of an offence under section 423, I.P.C. is that the sale-deed or a deed subjecting an immovable property to a charge must contain a false statement relating to the consideration or relating to the persons for whose use or bone fit it was intended to operate. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner failed to point out any false statement in the sale-deed relating to the consideration or relating to the persons in whose favour, the sale-deeds were executed. In this view, no case under section 423 I.P.C. is disclosed against the petitioners. 8. I, therefore, accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint.Revision accepted. *******