JUDGMENT T. R. Handa, J—On the basis of a police report a case under Sections 120-B/420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class(I) Simla. The learned Magistrate being of the view that a prima facie case was made out against both the accused persons, framed charges against either of them under Section 120-B and 420, I. P. C. The petitioner has now approached this court under Sections 397/399/ ;0i, Cr. P. C. praying that the charges framed against him as also the criminal proceedings aforesaid which are pending against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (I) Simla be quashed. 2. The case for the prosecution as gathered from the record is that Shri Bhanwar Lal Dhama, the father of the petitioner owned a house in Simla. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 conspired to deprive the said Shri Bhanwar Lal Dhama of the ownership and possession of the said house. In pursuance at the said conspiracy the petitioner on 3-4-1975 during the life time of his father, Shri Bhanwar Lal Dhama, made an application before the Tahsildar Simla for mutating the said house in his favour on the plea that his father had expired and that he was the sole surviving heir of his father. Respondent No. 2 Mrs. R. K Soni certified before the Tahsildar with respect to the factum of the death of Shri Bhanwar Lal Dhama. Acting on the application of the petitioner which was duly attested by him as also the statement of Mrs. R. K, Soni respondent No 2, the Tahsildar Simla sanctioned the mutation in respect of the said house in favour of the petitioner. 3. Shri Bhanwer Lal Dhama actually expired sometimes in 1979. Prior to his death on 10-7-1978 he had executed a will in terms of which he had bequeathed his property including the aforesaid house in favour of one Shri C, L. Sharma. 3. Shri Bhanwer Lal Dhama actually expired sometimes in 1979. Prior to his death on 10-7-1978 he had executed a will in terms of which he had bequeathed his property including the aforesaid house in favour of one Shri C, L. Sharma. When Shri C. L. Sharina approached the Tahsildar Simla for getting the mutation of the aforesaid house sanctioned in his favour on the basis of the above mentioned Will of Shri Bhanwar Lal Dhama, he learnt about the fraud practised by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in getting the mutation of the house in question sanctioned in favour of the petitioner during the life time of his father. Shri C. L Sharma then lodged a report with the police. The police after concluding the investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the learned Magistrate framed charges for both the aforesaid offences against the petitioner as also respondent No. 2. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that ever; on the facts as placed by the police on record, no offence can be, said to have been committed either by the petitioner or by respondent No. 2 and as such the charges framed being groundless deserve to be quashed and so the proceedings of the criminal case pending against him. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State and in my view the contention of the petitioner has all the force. A charge under Section 420 I. P. C. can be framed against an accused person only when the allegations against him prima facie answer the necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge under Section 420 I. P. C. can be framed against an accused person only when the allegations against him prima facie answer the necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. A plain reading of the language of Section 415, I. P. G. would show that these ingredients are: (i) that the accused deceived another person, and (ii) that the accused dishonestly or fraudulently induced the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, Or (i) that the accused deceived another person, and (ii) that the accused intentionally induced the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and (iii) such act or omission should be such as caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property." 6. In the instant case the person who is alleged to have been deceived is the Tahsildar Simla. There is no allegation if the petitioner dishonestly or fraudulently induced the person deceived, namely, the Tahsildar Simla to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. Here the case of the prosecution is that the deceived person, namely, the Tahsildar Simla was intentionally induced by the petitioner to sanction the mutation in respect of the house in question in his favour which mutation the Tahsildar would not have sanctioned if he were not so deceived. This case, therefore, falls under the second part of Section 415, Indian Penal Code. As already observed apart from showing that the Tahsildar was deceived and he was induced to sanction the mutation, in order to bring the offence within the ambit of Section 415, I. P. C. it has further to be shown that the act of the Tahsildar in sanctioning the mutation in favour of the petitioner caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the Tahsildar in body, mind, reputation or property. There is no suggestion whatsoever if the Tahsildar by sanctioning the mutation in question was caused any damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property. Even the Tahsildar in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. makes no such allegation. There is no suggestion whatsoever if the Tahsildar by sanctioning the mutation in question was caused any damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property. Even the Tahsildar in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. makes no such allegation. Otherwise also, in my opinion, no damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property could be caused to the Tahsildar as a result of deception or the fraud practised on him which led to the sanctioning of the mutation of the house in favour of the petitioner. By sanctioning the mutation on the basis of the application presented before him by the petitioner, the correctness of which was duly certified before him by Mrs. R. K. Soni respondent No. 2, the Tahsildar acted only in accordance with the rules and procedure. If later on it was discovered that he had been deceived, I fail to appreciate how he suffered or was likely to suffer any damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property. One of the necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating is, therefore, missing in the case and for that short reason the charge under Section 420, I. P. C. could not be framed. For the same reason the charge under Section 12(KB, I. P. C. could also not be sustained. 7. I thus find that the charges under Section 120-B as also under Section 420, I. P. C. as framed against the petitioner as also against respondent No. 2 are groundless and that any further proceedings conducted on the basis of such charges would be only an abuse of the process of the court. I accordingly quash the charges as framed against the petitioner as also respondent No. 2 and direct that further proceedings in the criminal case pending against them be closed forthwith.