JUDGMENT : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners accused have approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR No.230/2011 registered at the Police Station Lunkaransar, District Bikaner for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC. 2. Succinctly stated the facts relevant and essential for the disposal of this petition are noted here-in-below:- The respondent complainant Smt. Jamna Devi submitted a complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Lunkaransar alleging inter alia that she and the petitioners are siblings. Her sister Smt. Mohni had expired and Pawan and Taruna are legal heirs of Smt. Mohini. As per the complainant, their mother Smt. Magi Devi died intestate while leaving behind a significant chunk of land in the village Surnana, Tehsil Lunkaransar in which all the legal heirs have an equal share. The complainant claimed that the accused persons conspired together with the fraudulent intention of depriving the complainant, Taruna and Pawan of their lawful share in the property and got prepared a false and fabricated succession certificate on 20.09.1990 mentioning therein that Smt. Magi Devi did not leave behind any legal heir except the accused petitioners and in this fraudulent manner, they got the mutation of the entire chunk of land owned by Magi Devi carried out in their own names. The said complaint submitted by Smt. Magi Devi was forwarded to the Police Station Lunkaransar for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where FIR No.230/2011 came to be registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the above FIR. 3. The petitioners have averred that before lodging the FIR, the complainant submitted an appeal under Section 75 of the Land Revenue Act before the SDO, Lunkaransar on 19.04.2011 for cancellation of the disputed mutation entry made in favour of the petitioners and thereafter, she has lodged the instant belated FIR with the very same allegations against the petitioners. When the matter was taken up on 22.10.2013, this Court was apprised that the petitioners are ready to part with 1/4th share of the land in favour of the complainant as per her entitlement. When the matter was taken up on 22.10.2013, this Court was apprised that the petitioners are ready to part with 1/4th share of the land in favour of the complainant as per her entitlement. However, the counsel to accept the complainant, after taking instructions from his client, refused to accept the said suggestion stating that the complainant was not ready for the fair offer made by the accused. Thereupon, this Court expressed displeasure about the conduct of the respondent No.2 observing that she was not acting in a bonafide manner. 4. Shri Bhagat Dadhich learned counsel representing the petitioners urged that even as per the admitted case set up in the highly belated FIR, the petitioners simply got the mutation entry of the chunk of land carried out in their names after death of their mother and that too way back in the year 1990. While relying upon this Court's decision in the case of Rameshwar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2013 (2) CJ (Cri.) (Raj.) 783, he urged that an entry of mutation in revenue records is simply made for fiscal purposes i.e. collection of rent and no proprietary rights are created thereby. Hence, as per Shri Dadhich, the petitioners did not cheat the complainant nor did they cause her any wrongful loss while getting the mutation entry made and hence as per him, further investigation of the impugned FIR is unwarranted as the same does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Shri R.S. Choudhary representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. Nonetheless, he too was not in a position to dispute the fact that the highest case as set up by the complainant in the impugned FIR is only to the extent that the petitioners managed to get transferred the mutation of entire chunk of land left behind by their mother who died intestate in their own names while excluding the complainant from the list of legal heirs. Law is well settled by catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court that mutation in revenue record is simply a fiscal entry and no proprietary rights are created thereby. Law is well settled by catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court that mutation in revenue record is simply a fiscal entry and no proprietary rights are created thereby. Evidently thus, by simply getting the mutation of the land entered in their names and that too way back in the year 1990, the petitioners cannot be held liable for having acted fraudulently or for having cheated the complainant. The rights created in favour of the complainant by inheritance cannot be extinguished by the mere incorrect/incomplete mutation entry made in the names of the accused. Admittedly, the complainant has already initiated proceedings under the Land Revenue Act for rectification of the disputed mutation entry and it is expected that the revenue authority concerned shall direct the requisite rectification as per law. In addition to this, it is also apparent that while the matter was taken up by this Court on 22.10.2013, the petitioners fairly and bonafide offered to part with 1/4th share of the land in favour of the complainant as per her entitlement but she refused the genuine offer made by the accused and apparently is acting in a vindictive manner. 6. In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that the endeavour of the complainant while initiating the prosecution against the petitioners was not bonafide by any means. The mutation entry in question was made way back in year 1990. The FIR came to be lodged as late as in the year 2011. As discussed above, the admitted allegations as set out in the FIR do not disclose the ingredients of the offence of cheating and hence, this Court is of the firm opinion that allowing investigation of the impugned FIR would be nothing short of a gross abuse of process of criminal law and the same deserves to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No.230/2011 registered at the Police Station Lunkaransar, District Bikaner and all consequential proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are quashed in entirety. Needless to say that this order shall not prejudice the rights of the complainant to stake a lawful claim on her share in the disputed land.