The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the F. I. R. in crime o. 456/96 under Sections 420/467/ 468/471 and 120-B of the I. P. C. relating to P. S. Kaiserbagh, Lucknow. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not committed any offence as mentioned in the F. I. R. A perusal of the F. I. R. will go to show that during the course of investiga tion of crime No. 418/96 under Section 223/224/120-R of I. P. C, it has come in the knowledge that constable No. 2335 Videsh Kumar, who was working in the lock up at Collectorate, Lucknow colluded with under trial Surajpal Yadav and the petitioner Lallu Yadav and in order to achieve the criminal intention they got prepared fake requisitions for production of the petitioner in the Court of C. J. M. , Lucknow on 5-10-96, 14-10-996, 15-10-96, 16-10-96, 19-10-96, 23-10-96, 30-10-96 and 31-10-96 when no such dates were feed in the case. In this way, they conspired to achieve unlawful gain and have thus committed the offences under the sections mentioned above. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State, in which it has been men tioned that the lock-up Moharrir in col lusion with these undertrial has made fake requisitions for producing these under-trials in the Court when their presence was not required in the Court. If the petitioner had not asked the concerned constable then these requisitions would not have been made and the petitioner would not have been sent to the Court. If the petitioner was not involved in this crime then he should have complained about this fact to the higher authorities or to the Court. A number of cases under Gangsters Act is pending against the petitioner in which he is detained in Jail. He has not been arrested so far in this case. It is wrong to say that the petitioner has not committed any offence as mentioned above. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, no offence against the petitioner as mentioned in the F. I. R. is made out. It is wrong to say that the petitioner has not committed any offence as mentioned above. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, no offence against the petitioner as mentioned in the F. I. R. is made out. A perusal of the F. I. R. goes to show that there are certain allegations against the petitioner that he colluded and conspired with co-accused Surajpal and the constable of the lock-up and got fic titious requisitions prepared, so that he may be produced in court. There is no allegation as to what advantage the petitioner gained by going to the Court on the dates on which his no case was fixed. Nothing has been shown during the course of arguments by the learned Standing Counsel which may support his case that the petitioner was to gain some advantage by production in court on the dates which were not fixed by the Court. 6. The first offence said to have been committed by the petitioner is under Sec tion 420 I. P. C. Section 420 I. P. C. deals with cheating and dishonesty inducing delivery of property. The ingredients of this section is defined in Section 417ipc, which are as under: (1) That the accused deceived some per son; (2) That he thereby induced him; (3) That the inducement was fraudulent or dishonest; (4) That the person so induced delivered or consented to the retention of some property; or prove: (1) That the accused deceived some per son; (2) That the accused thereby induced him; (3) That such inducement was intention al; (4) That the person so induced did or omitted to do something; (5) That such act or omission caused, or was likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 7. Thus, we find that the petitioner -has not deceived any person by fraudulent or dishonest intention or induced any person to deliver any property to any person. Therefore, no offence of this section is made out against the petitioner. 8. Next offence mentioned in the F. I. R. is Section 4671. P. C. which deals with forgery of valuable security, Will etc. Therefore, no offence of this section is made out against the petitioner. 8. Next offence mentioned in the F. I. R. is Section 4671. P. C. which deals with forgery of valuable security, Will etc. The ingredients of this section are- (1) That the document in question was a forgery; (2) That the accused forged it; (3) That the document is one of the kinds mentioned in this section i. e. valuable security, Will etc. 9. In the present case there is no allegation in the F. I. R. that the petitioner has forged any document. Therefore, this section will also not be applicable to the facts disclosed in the F. I. R. 10. The next offence which is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is under Section 468 I. P. C. This section deals with forgery for purpose of cheating and other Section is 471 I. P. C. which deals with using as genuine a forged document. We have dealt with the forgery and cheat ing while dealing with Section 420 I. P. C. There is no allegation in the F. I. R. that the petitioner has forged any document or has used it for the purpose of cheating or used it as a genuine document. Thus, these two sections, namely, 468 and 471 I. P. C. will also not be applicable to the facts of this case. 11. Now the last section levelled is 120-B of the I. P. C. This section deals with the criminal conspiracy. This is not a sub stantive offence, but it is committed only in relation to some other offences when two or more persons conspired to do some criminal act, which is not permitted by any law and which is punishable under the provisions of the I. P. C. 12. We have found in the earlier part of the judgment that the petitioner, ac cording to the allegations of the F. I. R. , cannot be said to have committed any of fence under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 I. P. C. Therefore, he cannot be said to have committed any offence punishable under Section 120-B I. P. C. for any criminal con spiracy. 13. Keeping in view all these facts, the F. I. R. in the present case as far as the petitioner is concerned, is liable to be quashed. 13. Keeping in view all these facts, the F. I. R. in the present case as far as the petitioner is concerned, is liable to be quashed. The F. I. R. of crime No. 456/96 under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B of the I. P. C. , PS. Kaiserbagh, Lucknow with relation to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. .