JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. For the reasons stated in the application, IA No. 3256 of 2013 is allowed. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. assailing the F.I.R. Case Crime No. 128 of 2012, under Sections 171-B and 420 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar Haridwar, District Haridwar. An F.I.R. was got registered by Shri Madan Pal Singh Tomar, Sector Magistrate 03 Haridwar on 19.01.2012 with Police Station Kotwali Nagar Haridwar, District Haridwar, inter alia, stating therein that on 29.01.2012, he alongwith S.I. Santosh Kunwar and police force was busy in inspecting the election booth in Brahmpuri area of Haridwar; police informant passed on secret information to the effect that one person was distributing voter cards and money in Brahmpuri area; having believed the secret information, Sector Magistrate alongwith police force reached near Brahmpuri primary school and noticed that petitioner was distributing currency notes to different persons; Sector Magistrate and police force immediately de-boarded the government vehicle and rushed towards the petitioner; however, having seen the Sector Magistrate and police force, petitioner started running; on being chased, the petitioner was apprehended at about 8:30 p.m.; on being asked, petitioner disclosed his identity; on the personal search of the petitioner, Rs.2,23,365/-, 31 voter I.D. cards, 31 voter slips, one visiting card, one P.N.B. ATM. Card, one reliance card, one small pocket diary, one paper containing the names and phone numbers and one purse were recovered from the possession of the petitioner; petitioner could not furnish satisfactory explanation about the money and items recovered from him; therefore, money recovered, voter I.D. cards and voter slips were seized by the police party. Sector Magistrate formed his opinion that petitioner was intending to influence the election to be held on 30th May, 2012 and voter cards so recovered from his possession were fictitious and prepared by the petitioner; petitioner was distributing money (bribe) to influence the voters, therefore, F.I.R. was got registered under Section 171-B and 420 I.P.C. by the Sector Magistrate. Sector Magistrate formed his opinion that petitioner was intending to influence the election to be held on 30th May, 2012 and voter cards so recovered from his possession were fictitious and prepared by the petitioner; petitioner was distributing money (bribe) to influence the voters, therefore, F.I.R. was got registered under Section 171-B and 420 I.P.C. by the Sector Magistrate. Section 171-B I.P.C. reads as under:- “Bribery - Whoever – (i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or (ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery: Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section. (2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward.” To constitute offence under Section 171-B I.P.C., prosecution must allege and prove that either accused has given gratification to some one with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise his electoral right in favour of particular candidate or accused has accepted any gratification as a reward for exercising his electoral right in favour of particular candidate. Having read entire F.I.R., I could not find out even a whisper in the F.I.R. about the name of the persons who were paid money (gratification) by the petitioner. No such voters were examined under Section 161 Cr. P.C. by the Investigating Officer. There seems to be no averment or prima-facie evidence to suggest that petitioner has induced any voter to exercise his electoral right in favour of any particular candidate or party. No such voters were examined under Section 161 Cr. P.C. by the Investigating Officer. There seems to be no averment or prima-facie evidence to suggest that petitioner has induced any voter to exercise his electoral right in favour of any particular candidate or party. Vague allegation that accused was distributing the money to influence the election is not sufficient to constitute offence under Section 171-B I.P.C. Cheating is defined under Section 415 I.P.C. Section 415 I.P.C. reads as under:- “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 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"”. As per the language of cheating, accused must deceive any person fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property or to do or omit to do anything. As observed hereinbefore, the name of the voters who were induced or influenced to caste votes have not been mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Ingredients of cheating are totally missing in the present case. This Court vide order dated 20th June, 2013 directed the State Counsel to seek instructions as to whether petitioner was influencing any voter to cast vote in favour of any particular candidate / party. In the counter affidavit bald statement is made that petitioner was influencing the voters to caste vote in favour of the B.J.P., however, names of the voters are not mentioned in the counter affidavit who were paid gratification or were influenced by the petitioner to caste their votes in favour of the candidate of B.J.P. F.I.R. is totally vague and ambiguous. In the considered opinion of this Court, none, how so high he may be, should be permitted to abuse the process of law. Prosecution of a citizen can only be permitted when there is reliable and authentic prima-facie evidence against the accused. In my considered view, informant Sector Magistrate has committed grave error by registering the F.I.R. merely on the basis of his suspicion. Prosecution of a citizen can only be permitted when there is reliable and authentic prima-facie evidence against the accused. In my considered view, informant Sector Magistrate has committed grave error by registering the F.I.R. merely on the basis of his suspicion. It amounts to abuse of process of law. Mere reading of the F.I.R. as well as statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of Sector Magistrate, Joint Magistrate Jyoti Yadav, S.I. Sri Santosh Kumar and Constable and Head Constable would not constitute offences under Sections 171-B or 420 I.P.C. Therefore, prosecution of the present petitioner seems to be totally unjustified and would amount to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. Consequently, petition is allowed. F.I.R. Case Crime No. 128 of 2012, under Sections 171-B and 420 I.P.C., charge-sheet filed pursuant to the F.I.R. in question and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8916 of 2012 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Haridwar are hereby quashed.