JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing F.I.R. No. 259/2010 pending in the Police Station, Rohat District Pali for the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 18, 31 and Section 125-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. 2. Short facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate stating therein that petitioner No. 1 is entered as Bheema Ram in the Municipal Board, Pali but he has contested the election for the post of Member of the Panchayat Samiti, Rohat in the name of Munna Lal but his name is entered in the voter-list of Municipal Board, Pali as Bheema Ram. He has illegally entered his name as Munna Lal in the voter-list of Gram Panchayat, Dhabar. As such he has cheated by personation and also committed the offence under the Representation of Peoples Act. The complaint has been sent to the Police Station for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. 3. The contention of the present petitioner No. 1 is that the present petitioner is resident of village Dhabar Kala Tehsil Rohtak District Pali. He is running a hardware shop in Pali and as such, he is residing at village Dhabar Kal as well as at Pali. Petitioner No. 1 has also submitted that he is known as Munna Lal in Village Dhabar Kala but in the school, his name has been entered as Bheema Ram and now present petitioner No. 1 is known by both names, Munna Lal and Bheema Ram, hence he has committed no offence. It has further been stated that if name of a person is entered twice or more in the electoral roll of the constituency, that will not constitute any offence and no offences under the Representation of People Act are made out against the present petitioner and hence the F.I.R. should be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the present petitioner No. 1 has misrepresented himself as Munna Lal and by this misrepresentation he has contested the election for the post of Member, Panchayat Samity at Rohat. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the present petitioner No. 1 has misrepresented himself as Munna Lal and by this misrepresentation he has contested the election for the post of Member, Panchayat Samity at Rohat. 5. The first contention of the present petitioner is that if name of a person is entered twice or more in the electoral roll of the constituency that will not constitute any offence and he has referred Section 18 of the Representation of Peoples Act, which reads as under : "Section 18: No person to be registered more than once in any constituency.- No person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any constituency more than once." 6. The above provision goes to show that if a person has been registered more than once in a constituency, then it is not an offence. Hence Section 18 does not provide for any penalty for offence. 7. The order contention of the respondent is that the present petitioner has made false declaration regarding his name and paternity but nothing has been alleged in the F.I.R. At the same time, the present petitioner has specifically alleged that he is known by both of his names, Munna Lal and Bheema Ram. It has also been stated that his name is entered in the voter list of Gram Panchayat, Dhabar Kala since 1990 and he has contested the elections for the post of Ward Panch of Gram Panchayat, Dhabar in the year 2000 and remained as Ward Panch of Gram Panchayat, Dhabar till 2005. The learned counsel for petitioner has also referred to Section 31 of the Representation of Peoples Act reads as under : "Section 31. Making false declaration.-If any person makes in connection with (a) - the preparation, revision or correction of an electoral roll, or (b) - the inclusion or exclusion of any entry in or from an electoral roll. a statement or declaration in writing which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both." 8. a statement or declaration in writing which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both." 8. Above provision goes to show that when a person makes any statement or declaration which is false, then he shall be punishable under the above provision, but in the present, no allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner that he has, in any way, made a false statement or declaration. Per contra, the petitioner has specifically submitted that he is known by both names and. if a person is known by two names, it cannot be termed as impersonation. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Babnrao v. Manikrao and another, AIR 1999 SC 2028 . 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which reads as tinder: "Section 18. Electors and Electoral Rolls.-(1) For each of the wards or constituencies into which the area of a Panchayat Rajasthan Institution is divided under this Act, there shall be prepared and maintained in the prescribed manner by or under the supervision of the State Election Commission an electoral roll thereof. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (6), every person who (a) - is not less than eighteen years of age on the qualifying date, and (b) - is ordinarily resident in a ward or constituency of the Panchayati Rajasthan Institution concerned shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for the ward or constituency." 11. The above provisions goes to show that every person, who is above the age of 18 years and is ordinarily residing in a ward or constituency, shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for the ward or constituency. 12. Hence looking at the above, no breach of any provision of Representation of Peoples Act has been made out by the impugned F.I.R. 13. 12. Hence looking at the above, no breach of any provision of Representation of Peoples Act has been made out by the impugned F.I.R. 13. During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent specifically submitted that offence under Section 419, I.P.C. has been alleged in the F.I.R. and it is prima facie proved by the allegations asserted in the F.I.R. and he has also referred to Section 416, I.P.C. which reads as tinder: "416. Cheating by impersonation.- A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. Explanation.-The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person." 14. The above provisions goes to show that for the offence of cheating by impersonation, it is obligatory that one should preterit to be some other person. The explanation is also clear. But in the present case, the petitioner has not pretend to be some other person but the simple case is that the petitioner is known by two names and no case of impersonation can be presumed. At the same time impersonation itself is not an offence under Section 419 to book the person in the above offence. It is necessary that the impersonation should be coupled with cheating and cheating is defined under Section 415, I.P.C., which reads as under : "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 should 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". Explanation.- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section." 15. Explanation.- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section." 15. A bare perusal of the F.I.R. goes to show that there are no allegations against the present petitioners that they had in any way deceived or induced any person for delivery of any property or has done or omitted to do in any way to cause damage or harm to any person and hence when the alleged impersonation is not coupled with cheating, Section 419, I.P.C. will not come in play. 16. The other contention of the present petitioner is that this F.I.R. is mala fide one because the daughter of the complainant Leela has contested the elections against petitioner No. 1 for the post of Up-pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Rohat and she was defeated by petitioner No. 1 and hence this F.I.R. has been filed with ulterior motive after delay of 10 months. 17. Looking at the above, continuation of the impugned F.I.R. is an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 18. In view of the above, this misc. petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No. 259/2010 of Police Station Rohat District Pali is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******