JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, vide which, he affirmed the order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangria, District Hanumangarh and dismissed the revision petition. 2. The facts, in short, are that Nakshtra Singh had 5 daughters, including the complainant Charno. Thereafter, Nakshtra Singh got married to the present petitioner Jasvinder Kaur. She is today 75 years of age. Nakshtra Singh died on 12.11.1999, leaving behind his widow, i.e., the petitioner and his five daughters, including the complainant. A registered deed, i.e., 'Dastavej Dasterbari' was executed, vide which, the daughters, including the complainant gave away their claim right over the property in favour of the petitioner. The said document is signed by all the sisters, i.e., daughters of the deceased Nakshtra Singh. The said document was witnessed by the brother of the; deceased. The stamp paper was bought by Harjeet, i.e., the sister of the complainant. The said document was registered in the year 2000. The said document has not been challenged till date in any civil proceedings. On the basis of this document, the mutation was entered in the name of the petitioner. Subsequently, an F.I.R., was lodged on 5.11.2007, by the present respondent-complainant under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., alleging that Jasvinder Kaur with ill intention and promise to adopt the son Pradeep of one of the sisters of the complainant got executed the relinquishment deed, the document mentioned above from the complainant and her sisters. 3. Investigation was conducted. In pursuance to the said investigation, negative Final Report was submitted. The complainant filed protest petition and the cognizance under Section 420 I.P.C., was taken vide order and judgment dated 28.1.2009. 4. While praying for setting aside the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has not disclosed the fact that she had purchased the stamp paper and the complainant and her sister had duly appeared before the Registrar Office and signed the relinquishment deed before the Sub-Registrar. The complainant had willingly executed the deed but now since the price of the land has increased, the complainant alongwith her sisters and their husbands have connived together to lodge the false F.I.R. 5. Heard. 6. The complainant had willingly executed the deed but now since the price of the land has increased, the complainant alongwith her sisters and their husbands have connived together to lodge the false F.I.R. 5. Heard. 6. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 Charno in spite of service. Thus, the present petition has not been contested by the respondent. 7. It is not disputed that the relinquishment deed has not been challenged in any civil proceedings. Moreover, even from the perusal of the F.I.R., it is evident that the complainant or her sisters admit that they have signed on the said document. No civil suit for cancellation of the document has been filed till date. 8. The Court has not taken any cognizance under Sections 466 and 467 of the I.P.C. Thus, the said document is neither forged nor fabricated. Thus, the only question that survives is as to whether the said document has been signed by misrepresentation. In order to make out a case under Section 420 I.P.C., ingredients of Section 415 have to be made out. Section 415 of the I.P.C., 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 would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, any which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"." 9. A perusal of the said Section shows that there has to be an intention from the very beginning to cheat. No such intention is forthcoming from the entire allegations. The argument of the respondents accepted by the Court below at the stage of cognizance that the petitioner was not wedded wife of the deceased as she had got decree of divorce from her first husband as late as in 2002, in itself, cannot be made a ground for making out a case under Section 420 of the I.P.C. The said fact has no bearing on the relinquishment deed as there is no allegation that the petitioner ever suppressed the fact of her earlier marriage while she was living with the deceased Nakshtra Singh. 10. 10. ' Admittedly, Nakshtra Singh and the present petitioner were living together. In fact, it is after the death of Nakshtra Singh that the complainant alongwith her other sisters relinquished their right in favour of the petitioner. The said document has not been challenged in any civil proceedings. The stamp paper stated to be purchased by Harjeet Kaur and the complainant and his sisters presented themselves before the Sub-Registrar Office to sign the said deed. They admitted their signatures. The proceedings under Sections 466 and 457 already stand dropped. In the circumstances, no offence under Section 420 I.P.C., is made out. The very ingredients of Section 415 are missing and the very F.I.R., is misconceived and misuse of the process of law. 11. In view of the above, orders dated 28.1.2009 and 13.8.2010 passed by the Courts below are quashed and set aside and F.I.R. No. 609/2007 registered at Police Station Sangariya, District Hanumangarh is quashed.Petition allowed. *******