P. K. JAIN, J. Heard Sri R. K. Por wal, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri U. C. Misra, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that there were two brothers, Banwari Lal and Ujiarey Lal, who had joint holdings in plot No. 536 having an area of 5. 73 acres. Present revisionists, Siya Ram and Sewa Ram and their brothers Ram Bahadur, Agaj Ram and Ram Milan are sons of Ujiarey Lal. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 24-1-80 Banwari Lal executed a will in favour of all the five sons of Ujiarey Lal. However, on 25-10-80 Banwari Lal ex ecuted sale-deed of his share of land in favour of Ram Bahadur one of the sons of Ujiarey Lal. Ram Bahadur applied for mutation on the basis of the said sale-deed but his name could not be mutated as there were some dues of the bank and the land in question was mortgaged with the Bank. It is also alleged that in the said proceedings Siya Ram had filed objections but sub sequently he got his objections rejected. Ram Bahadur thereafter in July 1982 ex ecuted sale-deeds in favour of different persons. Ram Bahadur again in August 1983 executed sale- deed of the entire land i. e. 5. 73 acres in the name of Devi Dayal and his wife Jai Devi for a sum of Rs. 30,000. Possession was delivered to them and on 14-8-85 names of Smt. Jai Devi and Devi Dayal were mutated in the revenue records as Ram Bahadur did not file any objection. The complainant claims to have purchased half share in the joint land from Devi Dayal and Jai Devi in July 1986 through registered sale-deed for a sum of Rs. 49,000. It is also alleged that Ram Bahadur thereafter in-October, 1986 ex ecuted sale-deed of the same land which was sold by him to Devi Dayal and Smt. Jai Devi in favour of Bare Lal and Ram Singh in order to cause loss to the complainant. It was alleged in the complaint that this was done in collusion with Siya Ram and Seva Ram. It was alleged in the complaint that this was done in collusion with Siya Ram and Seva Ram. If was further alleged that prior to the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the complainant the accused persons and their other brothers got their names mutated in the revenue records on the basis of the will" alleged to have been ex ecuted in their favour by Banwari Lal and this was also done in order to cause loss to the complainant and his wife. On these allegations a prayer was made that the accused persons may be prosecuted and may be punished. 3. The trial Court after recording evidence under Sections 200, Cr. PC. and 202, Cr. PC. and also perusing the docu ments filed, summoned the accused per sons including the present petitioners under Sections 420/468, IPc 4. The present petitioners preferred revision against the summoning order which was dismissed by the revisional Court by judgment and order dated 21-2-1990. 5. Both these orders, that of the learned Magistrate as well as that of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge are chal lenged in the present writ petition on the ground that so far as the present petitioners are concerned, no offence is disclosed against them. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the entire Act of the accused persons was in collusion with each other and the ac cused persons have defrauded the com plainant and his wife by mis-repre sentation. 6. Admittedly, the sale-deed in favour of the complainant and his wife was ex ecuted in the year 1986 by Devi Dayal and his wife Smt. Jai Devi. It is also admitted that on the date of the execution of the sale- deed by these two vendors, their names were existing in the revenue record in respect of the said land. There is ab solutely no allegation that at any point of time the present petitioners or their brother Ram Bahadur had ever made any mis-representation to the complainant or his wife and they were made to part with their money on the basis of such mis-repre sentation or inducement. Section 415, IPC defines the offence of cheating for which punishment is provided under Section 420, IPC Section 415, IPC reads as follows: "415. Section 415, IPC defines the offence of cheating for which punishment is provided under Section 420, IPC Section 415, IPC reads as follows: "415. 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 person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces 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 which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". " 7. Bare perusal of Section 415, IPC would show that any person who deceives other person and fraudulently or dishonestly induces such other person to deliver any property which he would not have done but for such fraudulent and dishonest inducement and which Act causes damage or harm to that person is said to cheat. In the instant case there is absolutely no allegations of making any fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioners or their brother Ram Bahadur Sale-deed in favour of the complainant and his wife was executed by Devi Dayal or his wife. There is not any averment or case of the complainant that in view of any inducement made by the present petitioners or their brother, the complainant and his wife were induced to part with their property or money. This aspect of legal position, has gone unconsidered by the learned Magistrate as also by the Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision. Section 420, IPC provides Punishment for offence of cheating and under this section only such person or persons who cheat, and thereby dishonest ly induce the person deceived to deliver any property to any person are liable to be punished. Since there is no allegation against the present petitioners of any dishonest inducement or cheating and delivery of any property as a result of such cheating and dishonest misrepresenta tion, the present petitioners cannot be li able for punishment under Section 420, IPc 8. Since there is no allegation against the present petitioners of any dishonest inducement or cheating and delivery of any property as a result of such cheating and dishonest misrepresenta tion, the present petitioners cannot be li able for punishment under Section 420, IPc 8. The other offence for which the petitioners have been summoned is under Section 468, IPC This section provides that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 9. In para 9 of the complaint the allegation made is that on 14-10-86 in order to deprive the complainant and his wife of the possession of the land in ques tion, Ram Bahadur in collusion with his brothers Siya Ram and Seva Ram executed sale-deed of the land purchased by the complainant and his wife in favour of Bare Lai and Ram Singh. How Seva Ram and Siya Ram had colluded is not at all dis closed. Any act of Siya Ram and Seva Ram prior to purchase of the land by the com plainant and his wife from Devi Dayal and his wife cannot amount to collusion of Seva Ram and Siya Ram with Ram Bahadur. In any case after mutation of the names of Ram Bahadur, Siya Ram, and Seva Ram and their two brothers, in the year 1983, admittedly name of Devi Dayal and his wife Smt. Jai Devi was mutated" in the revenue records and at the time of execution of the sale-deed by them in favour of the complainant and his wife, they were recorded tenure holders of the land. Therefore, it cannot be said that any forgery was done in order to cheat the complainant and his wife at the time of the execution of the sale-deed in their favour. From mere fact that earlier Seva Ram and Siya Ram along with their three brothers got their names mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land in question, it cannot be inferred that this act of Seva Ram and Siya Ram was in collusion with Ram Bahadur in order to deprive the com plainant of his land, and in order to cheat him. 10. 10. The act of Ram Bahadur in ex ecuting sale-deed dated 14-10-86 in favour of Bare Lai and Ram Singh may amount to cheating by Ram Bahadur and not by the complainant and complainants wife. 11. In view of the discussions made above, in my view, the charges under Sec tions 420 and 468, IPC cannot be sustained against the present petitioners. 12. Petitioners succeed and their petition is allowed. Impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 1990, so far as they relate to the present petitioners are quashed and proceedings against the present petitioners are also quashed. Order dated 7-6-1990 staying further proceedings in the case is vacated. Petition allowed. .