JUDGMENT 1. . - This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code seeks quashing of F.I.R. No. 178/2001, P.S. Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-13, Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that non-petitioner No. 2 Nirmal Singh filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur stating that his father Gurdayal Singh married twice. From the first wedlock with Dilip Kaur, he had two sons namely, Sukhdeo Singh and Jagdeo Singh and one daughter Smt. Mahendra Kaur, Mst. Dilip Kaur died on 25-12-1964. Jagdev Singh died on 22-4-1979. Thereafter, Gurdayal Singh married with M/s. Ranjeet Kaur from whom he had only one son i.e. non-petitioner No.2 Nirmal Singh. Gurdayal Singh died on 8-3-1981. The agricultural land owned and possessed by Gurdayal Singh come to be inherited by his surviving heirs in equal shares. 3. It appears that 2 relinquishment deeds were executed and got registered on 9-10-1995 one by Mst. Ranjeet Kaur and Mst. Mahendra Kaur vide which they relinquished their right, title and interest to their share in the property left by late Gurdayal Singh in favour of Sukhdeo Singh and another relinquishment deed was executed and not registered by Mst. Mahendra Kaur vide which she relinquished her share in her deceased brother Jagdev Singh's property left by late Gurdayal Singh in favour of Jagdev Singh stating that after the death of her father Jagdev Singh on 22-4-1979 and he having no heir, she and her brother Sukhdeo Singh became entitled to his share and the share she was entitled to in the property due to death of Jagdev Singh is being relinquished in favour of her brother Sukhdeo Singh. 4. Thereafter, a complaint was filed before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur by Mst. Ranjeet Kaur against Sukhdeo Singh, Mahendra Kaur and Ram Kishan Kataria, the petition writer, with the allegation that she was entitled to one fourth share in the entire agriculture land left by her deceased husband Gurdayal Singh and accused Sukhdeo Singh and Mahendra Kaur and her son Nirmal Singh falsely representing to her that the family partition of the agriculture land was being got attested by the Tehsildar got a relinquishment deed executed with the assistance of accused Ram Kishan Kataria and thus, cheated her. On the basis of this complaint, after it was forwarded under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code to the S.H.O. P.S. Sri Karanpur, an F.I.R. No. 165/99 was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code but after investigation, F.I.R. No. 71/99 was submitted which was ultimately accepted by the Court on 25-4-2000. 5. Thereafter, the F.I.R. No. 178/2001, which is sought to be quashed has been registered on the basis of the complaint filed by Nirmal Singh against Sukhdeo Singh, Mst. Mahendra Kaur and Major Singh for the offences under Sections 415, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 167 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code and the allegations in this F.I.R. are that after the death of his father Gurdayal Singh, he, his mother Mst. Ranjeet Kaur, his brother Sukhdeo Singh and his sister Mst. Mahendra Kaur had all one fourth share each in the agriculture land left by the deceased but in order to deprive him and his mother, the accused Sukhdeo Singh and Mst. Mahendra Kaur in conspiracy with the accused Major Singh got a relinquishment deed executed in favour of Shukhdeo Singh in respect of the share in the land of late Jagdev Singh and thus, they have committed forgery and cheating. This case is said to be under investigation and the petitioners have sought quashing of this F.I.R. on two grounds namely, (1) that this F.I.R. is materially and substantially based on the same facts and allegations which were mentioned in the earlier F.I.R. No. 165/99 and second F.I.R. No. 178/2001 on the same facts and allegations is not maintainable as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala and others, 201 (6) SCC 181 and other connected criminal appeals and this Court in the case of Harchand Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 32 and Harbansh Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 245 and (2) the other ground on which the F.I.R. is sought to be quashed is that no cognizable offence whatsoever is made out even prima facie from the alleged facts and, therefore, the continuance of investigation in this F.I.R. tantamounts to abuse of process of the Court and the same should be quashed. 6. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 and learned P.P. on behalf of the State. 7. It may be stated at the outset that it has been conceded at the bar on either side that the second F.I.R. on same facts and allegations is not maintainable as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) and in other authorities referred to above by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has pointed out that earlier F.I.R. No. 165/99 was with respect to the relinquishment deed dated 9-10-1995 which was executed by Mst. Ranjeet Kaur and Mst. Mahendra Kaur in favour of Sukhdeo Singh and the present F.I.R. pertains to another relinquishment deed of the same date i.e. 9-10-1995 which has been executed by Mst. Mahendra Kaur, in favour of her brother Sukhdeo Singh. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute this fact and upon a perusal of the contents of both the F.I.R. it is apparent that the contention of learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 is correct that the facts and allegations of the earlier F.I.R. are different from the facts and allegations of the present F.I.R. which is sought to be quashed and, therefore, on this ground, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. 10. However, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has sufficient force and merit. There are allegations of forger and cheating against the petitioners in the F.I.R., but the execution of relinquish-deed dated 9-10-1995 by Mst. Mahendra Kaur does not fall within the definition of "making a false document" and the facts alleged do not disclose any "cheating" within the meaning of Section 415 Indian Penal Code. 11. Section 464 Indian Penal Code and Section 415 Indian Penal Code are as under : "464. Mahendra Kaur does not fall within the definition of "making a false document" and the facts alleged do not disclose any "cheating" within the meaning of Section 415 Indian Penal Code. 11. Section 464 Indian Penal Code and Section 415 Indian Penal Code are as under : "464. Making a false document.- A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record- Firstly.- who dishonestly or fraudulently - (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record ; (c) affixes any digital signature of any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record of digital signature was made, signed, sealed executed transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration." 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". 12. 12. A bare perusal of the above provisions reveals that the alleged facts do not constitute making of a false document or of 'cheating' on the part of the petitioners and there is also no material to show that there was any criminal conspiracy amongst them. Hence, the continuation of the investigation in this case would tantamount to abuse of process of the court. 13. The non-petitioner No. 2 has already filed a revenue suit to get the document in question declared as null and void and inoperative as against him and for injunction against the petitioners and that appears to be the proper remedy in the facts and circumstances of the case and not recourse to criminal proceedings as instituted by the non-petitioner No. 2 in this case. 14. In this view of the matter, therefore, no cognizable offence whatsoever being even prima facie disclosed from a bare reading of the allegations in the complaint/F.I.R. the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed on this second ground in exercise of the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for securing the ends of justice. 15. In the result, this petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No. 178/2001 of Police Station, Sri Karanpur is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******