JUDGMENT : G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, J. 1. Petitioner Chhail Singh has brought instant petition with a prayer that order of cognizance, which has further been affirmed by the revisional court, be quashed. 2. Brief facts pertaining to the lis are that an agreement to sale was executed in favour of late Magraj @ Megh Singh on 04.03.1976 by Rajkumar, Amar Singh. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are legal heirs of deceased Magraj @ Megh Singh, being brother and widow of deceased Magraj @ Megh Singh, who died on 16.04.2002. A ceiling dispute had arisen in respect of entire land, part of which was agreed to be purchased by deceased Magraj @ Megh Singh. 3. Chhail Singh, the petitioner, who was appointed attorney by deceased Magraj @ Megh Singh to look after the property was not given authority to sale the property but after death of Magraj @ Megh Singh Attorney Chhail Singh and others executed a sale deed on 05.06.2004 registered on 07.06.2004 and Chhail Singh acted as an attorney, though the said deed of attorney, being a non-est document, after the death of executant Magraj @ Megh Singh. 4. Respondent Achal Singh and Smt. Mena Devi getting aggrieved by the said execution, lodged a FIR, which was investigated and FR was filed, upon protest petition, trial court took cognizance, which has further been affirmed by the Revisional Court. Petitioner Chhail Singh aggrieved by the said order has come before this court by preferring instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that contents of the FIR and Protest Petition and statements recorded in support of the same does not convey ingredients of Section 415 IPC since no inducement or deception has been played nor any misrepresentation has allegedly been made for cheating. Relying upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Md. Ibrahim & others Vs. State of Bihar & another, 2009 CrLR (SC) 746 and Bhanwar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 2069, Devendra & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2009 CrLR (SC) 783 and Shakuntala Devi & Ors. Relying upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Md. Ibrahim & others Vs. State of Bihar & another, 2009 CrLR (SC) 746 and Bhanwar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 2069, Devendra & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2009 CrLR (SC) 783 and Shakuntala Devi & Ors. Vs Chamru Mahto & Ors., 2009 CrLR (SC) 356, it has been urged that petitioner has also not executed any Conveyance deed and mere acceptance has been assigned on the Conveyance deed, which does not constitute offence of cheating; despite the court below has erred and has given erroneous findings, so the order impugned be quashed and the petitioner be acquitted. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondent and learned Public Prosecutor contended that existence of any document purported to be power-of-attorney comes to an end at the demise of the executant and admittedly, alienation of deceased' property has been made on the basis of alleged power-of-attorney after the demise of its executant, which is unlawful and fact that the executant of the power-of-attorney Shri Magraj has died, was within the knowledge of executant/transferor that Magraj was no more, despite knowledge of this fact, property of deceased person has transferred and petitioner has signed the document on behalf of himself and as an attorney of the deceased person, which is impermissible under law; as such, petitioner has played fraud and cheated with legal representatives of deceased Magraj by transferring property of the deceased after his demise and so far as law laid down in Md. Ibrahim's case (supra) is concerned, is not applicable because it was a dispute between two brothers and deception has been played in the present matter, so the petition deserves to be dismissed and both the courts have passed lawful orders because prima-facie enough material was available there to take cognizance against the accused-petitioner and nothing more was required at the cognizance stage; so petition be dismissed being not maintainable. 7. Perusal of the entire material available on the record, prima-facie highlights the following indisputable factual aspects:- (i) An agreement to sale was executed in favour of deceased Magraj @ Megh Singh on 04.03.1973 in respect of a part of the land of the disputed property. 7. Perusal of the entire material available on the record, prima-facie highlights the following indisputable factual aspects:- (i) An agreement to sale was executed in favour of deceased Magraj @ Megh Singh on 04.03.1973 in respect of a part of the land of the disputed property. (ii) Possession thereof was delivered to the deceased Magraj @ Megh Singh and the said property was let out against rental consideration and Chhail Singh, being power of attorney of Magraj @ Megh Singh was looking after the affairs of the said property and was also collecting rent on behalf of Magraj @ Megh Singh. (iii) Magraj @ Megh Singh died on 16.04.2002. (iv) Chhail Singh and Magraj @ Megh Singh are close relatives so Chhail Singh was well aware about the facts of demise of Magraj @ Megh Singh. (v) Chhail Singh as an executant of conveyance deed, showing himself to be attorney of deceased Magraj @ Megh Singh, has executed sale deed of the questioned property on 05.06.2004, being attorney of deceased Magraj @ Megh Singh, though the said document was non-est after demise of its executant. 8. (v) Chhail Singh as an executant of conveyance deed, showing himself to be attorney of deceased Magraj @ Megh Singh, has executed sale deed of the questioned property on 05.06.2004, being attorney of deceased Magraj @ Megh Singh, though the said document was non-est after demise of its executant. 8. Learned trial Court, while dealing with all these aspects and at the time of taking cognizance against Chhail Singh, while allowing the protest petition has observed:- ^^fdlh Hkh O;fDr dh e`R;q gksus ds i'pkr mlds }kjk fn;s x;s eqf[r;kjukesa dk dksbZ fof/kd egRo ugha jgrk gS vkSj lu~ 2002 esa es?kflag mQZ es?kjkt dh e`R;q ds ckn mldh tk;nkn ds laca/k esa Nsyfalg dks fn;s x;s eqf[r;kjukek Hkh dksbZ fof/kd egRo ugha Fkk vkSj Nsyflag bl eqf[r;kjukesa ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ Hkh dk;Z ugha dj ldrk FkA eqf[r;kjukesa esa tk;nkn cspku djus vFkok tk;nkn dks cspku djus dh lgefr nsus dk vf/kdkj ugha fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj ,sls eqf[r;kjukesa ds vk/kkj ij ifjoknh vpyflag dh vksj ls tehu dh fcØh djus o e`rd es?kflag mQZ es?kjkt dh vksj ls mldh tehu tks mldh e`R;q ij mlds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks feyh cspku dj mldk ifjoknhx.k ds lkFk Ny djus dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA vr% iqfyl Fkkuk egkeafnj }kjk izdj.k esa izLrqr ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- bl gn rd ukeUtwj dj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd eqyfte Nsyflag xgyksr iq= ekaxhyky tkfr ekyh fuoklh ukxkSjh xsV ds ckgj Hkxrflag jksM+] tks/kiqj ds fo:) /kkjk 420 vkbZihlh ds rgr izlaKku fy;k tkrk gSA izdj.k Qkstnkjh ewy ds :i esa ntZ gks vkSj ;g izdj.k iqfyl fjiksVZ dh rjg ntZ izdj.k dh rjg pysxkA^^ 9. Learned Revisional Court also, while examining the matter thoroughly has observed:- ^^tgka rd vfUre izfrosnu dk iz'u gSa] ;g Lohd`r fof/kd fLFkfr gSa fd fojks/k ;kfpdk ij fdlh izdkj dk fu"d"kZ nsrs le; U;k;ky; dks fojks/k ;kfpdk] lkf{k;ksa ds dFkuksa o iqfyl }kjk izLrqr vuqla/kku i=koyh] lHkh ij lexz :i ls fopkj djrs gq, gh fu"d”kZ fn;k tkuk gSA vfUre izfrosnu esa of.kZr lEifr NSyflag o jkepUnz }kjk fdjk;s ij izkIr djuk o vU; O;fDr;ksa ds Hkh eq[r;kjukek izkFkhZ ds i{k eas gksuk crk;k x;k gS] dsoy lhfyax fookn ds vk/kkj ij eq[r;kjukek] bdjkjukesa dk fu"ikfnr gksuk eku Hkh fy;k tkosa rks Hkh ;g fn[kkoVh bdjkj jgk Fkk] rks Hkh bldh vuqikyuk esa 'kiFki= fu"ikfnr jgk gSA ifjoknh ds vfrfjDr vU; O;fDr;ksa }kjk ,rjkt ugha fd;s tkus ds vfUre izfrosnu esa fy;s x;s vk/kkj dk tgka rd laca/k gS] ;fn vU; fdlh O;fDr dh e`R;q gqbZ gSa rks fof/kd :i ls eq[r;kjukek izHkkoh jgsxkA vr% ifjoknh ds vfrfjDr vU; O;fDr;ksa dh vkifRr izLrqr ugha gksus ds vk/kkj ij iqujh{k.kdrkZ dks vijk/kh ik;s tkus ls mUeksfpr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA^^ 10. Perusal of record indicates that while allowing the protest petition, learned trial Court has examined CW/1 Achal Singh @ Achloo Ram, CW/2 Smt. Mena Devi, CW/3 Ashok Parihar and CW/4 Om Prakash, who have narrated all the ingredients, which prima-facie discloses offence for which court below has taken cognizance against the accused-petitioner. 11. In Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572 , Supreme Court explained the meaning of the expression 'defraud' thus: "The expression "defraud" involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived." 12. Provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived." 12. Provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly. Revision filed by the petitioner has already been considered and dismissed, prima-facie there is enough material to disclose offence/s alleged, so there appears no reason to interfere with the findings of both the courts below, since trial is yet to complete and at the stage of cognizance, prima-facie, enough and appropriate reasons are there to proceed against the petitioner for the offence/s alleged under which trial courts has resorted cognizance and Revisional Court has affirmed the same. 13. For the reasons dealt with and deliberated, there is no justifiable cause to interfere with the order impugned at this stage. 14. Thus, petition being bereft of merit, is dismissed accordingly.