JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri S. K. Meena, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been preferred against the order dated 24-6-2015 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur in S.T. No. 130/2013. 3. Vide the impugned order, charges for offences under sections 420, 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code have been framed against petitioner No. 1-Rajesh and Petitioner No. 2-Manish, while charges for offences under sections 420/34, 467/34 and 468/34, Indian Penal Code have been framed against the Petitioner No. 3 Prahalad. 4. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the Respondent-Daulat filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, alleging therein that on 17-11-2008, he along with nine other persons of his family, went to the office of Sub-Registrar to execute a sale-deed, in respect of certain land, in favour of Nandani Sharma and Poonam Maheshwari, who are respectively wife of Petitioners No. 1 and 2. The sale-deed was executed as agreed between the parties, however, the petitioners under the guise of execution of sale-deed, fraudulently and dishonestly, also got executed two power of attorneys in their favour by keeping the complainant in dark regarding true nature of these documents. The complainant further averred that he never had any intention or knowledge about the execution of the power of attorneys. Thus, the petitioners had forged and fabricated the power of attorneys as the signatures of the complainant were obtained over these documents in a fraudulent manner and consequently, he was cheated by the petitioners. It was further averred that as Petitioner No. 3 had put his signatures on these documents as witness, therefore, he also shared common intention with regard to commission of the aforesaid offences, allegedly, coming within the purview of sections 420, 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shajapur, after examining witnesses under sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code, directed issue of process against the petitioners for offences under sections 420, 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code and in due course the case was committed to the Sessions Court. 6. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order, has framed charges against the petitioners as stated herein above. 7. 6. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order, has framed charges against the petitioners as stated herein above. 7. The legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned order has been challenged in this revision on the ground that Respondent-Daulat and nine other persons had duly executed two registered power of attorneys on 17-11-2008 before the Sub-Registrar. In view of the provisions contained in sections 33, 34(3), 35 and 52 of the Registration Act, it cannot be said, even prima-facie, that the power of attorneys were got executed by keeping the Respondent Daulat in dark, or without his knowledge, or that he was dishonestly or fraudulently induced to execute the aforesaid documents because in the process of registration, as required by the procedure laid down in the aforesaid provisions of law, at every step Daulat and nine other executants were informed about the nature and contents of the documents which, as per law, was read out to them. That somehow, respondent-Daulat wants to avoid these two documents and hence, instead of persuing remedy before a Civil Court, he, by filing the present complaint, has misused the criminal process. It is further averred that even after accepting entire allegations made in the complaint, no case against the petitioners for making false documents is made out within the meaning of sections 463 and 464, Indian Penal Code; hence, the charges framed against them are liable to be quashed as the same amounts to blatant misuse of process of law. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners on the basis of material available on record and that prima-facie, sufficient grounds were there to frame charges for offences under sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The petitioners have filed the copy of the criminal complaint made by Respondent-Daulat as well as the copies of alleged power of attorney which are the subject matter of the alleged offence between the parties. The question for determination is whether on the basis of allegations made in the complaint, prima-facie, the offences under sections 420, 461 and 468, Indian Penal Code are made out against the Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3? 11. The question for determination is whether on the basis of allegations made in the complaint, prima-facie, the offences under sections 420, 461 and 468, Indian Penal Code are made out against the Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3? 11. Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which defines cheating and section 420, Indian Penal Code which provides for offence of cheating read thus : “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”. (a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats. (b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. (c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. (d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats. (e) A, by pledging as diamonds article which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats. (f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats. A cheats. (f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats. (g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract. (h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed’s part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats. (i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 12. As provided in section 415, two classes of acts may constitute cheating; Firstly, a person deceived is induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain such property and that the act is done dishonestly or fraudulently; Secondly, doing or omitting to do anything which the person so deceived would not do or omit to do if he is not so deceived and that such an act or omission is caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 13. 13. Thus, not only there should be an act or omission, pursuant to deception, but also that such an act has caused or that it was likely to cause harm in body, mind, reputation or property to the person induced. 14. In the instant case, it has nowhere been averred in the complaint that the respondent suffered any harm in body, mind, reputation or property or that there was likelihood of such harm being caused. Therefore, one of the necessary ingredients to constitute cheating being totally absent, the charge for offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 15. Further, allegedly, the respondent was made to execute with nine other persons two power of attorneys. The executants of power of attorney are at liberty to cancel it at any time after its execution. Nine other persons, who were also executants of the alleged power of attorney, along with the Respondent-Daulat, have not joined the respondent as complainant. The documents were executed before the Sub-Registrar. The endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar on these documents clearly indicates that all the procedural formalities, as required under the provisions, contained in sections 33, 34(3), 35 and 52 of the Registration Act were complied with. 16. Therefore, even after accepting all the allegations made in the complaint, the offence of cheating as defined in section 415 is not made out against the petitioners, hence, charge for offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. 17. In Mohd. Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 , the Apex Court has elaborately dealt with the issue as to what amounts to forgery. It has been held that to constitute forgery, an act should involve making of false document as defined in section 464, Indian Penal Code which runs as under : “Section 464. Making a false document. A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First. It has been held that to constitute forgery, an act should involve making of false document as defined in section 464, Indian Penal Code which runs as under : “Section 464. Making a false document. A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First. 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 on 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 a part of document, electronic record or 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 alternation; 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.” 18. Thus, as regards offences under sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code, as explained by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ibraham (supra), there must be making of false document within the meaning of section 464, Indian Penal Code. Of-course, class thirdly of section 463 contemplates making of false document when a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or “by reason of deception practice upon him does not know the contents of the document. 19. Of-course, class thirdly of section 463 contemplates making of false document when a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or “by reason of deception practice upon him does not know the contents of the document. 19. In the instant case, there is no specific averment that any deception was practiced by the petitioners upon respondent. Here, it is pertinent to state that the alleged power of attorneys were executed by ten persons including respondent. Remaining nine persons have never complained about any deception being practiced upon them. Apart this, the power of attorneys were only for a period of one year which was over just one month prior to the filing of the criminal complaint. Further, no transfer has been effected by the petitioners in exercise of the power which they acquired on the basis of power of attorneys. Both the documents are registered documents which were executed before the Sub-Registrar. Section 33, 34 (3) and 35 of the Registration Act provides elaborate procedure with regard to registration of a document. The procedure contemplates that the document will be read over and explained to the executants. Prima-facie, it cannot be said that the formalities prescribed under the law were not performed by the Sub- Registrar. 20. All the aforesaid factors have not been taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while framing charges under sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, which have a close bearing on the issue. 21. If the entire matter is examined in the light of aforesaid factors, it cannot, prima-facie, be said that an offence under sections 467 or 468 is made out against the petitioners. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a serious error of law by framing charges for offence under sections 420, 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in a mechanical manner without duly and properly examining the record and considering that basically a civil dispute is being given the shape of a criminal dispute. 22. In Mohd. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a serious error of law by framing charges for offence under sections 420, 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in a mechanical manner without duly and properly examining the record and considering that basically a civil dispute is being given the shape of a criminal dispute. 22. In Mohd. Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 it is held that disputes which are essentially and purely of civil nature, should not be allowed to be given the shape of criminal disputes so as to settle scores or to harass the opposite party to settle civil disputes. Relevant observation made in para 7 of the Judgment Are as under : “This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal Courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. [See : G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U. P. [ 2000 (2) SCC 636 ] and Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. [ 2006 (6) SCC 736 ].]” 23. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not adverted to the aforesaid legal aspects of the matter and has framed the charges for offences under sections 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code which are not at all made out against the petitioners and, hence, unsustainable. 24. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order framing charge against the petitioner for offence under sections 420, 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained, therefore, the petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 24-6-2015, framing charges against the petitioners is hereby set aside, consequently, the criminal proceedings in S.T.No. 130/2013 are also quashed against the petitioners.