Order : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Petitioner, a 68 years old senior citizen house wife and a resident of United States of America, is before this Court seeking quashing of an FIR No.183/2024 dated 23.08.2024 registered at Police Station Mathania, District Jodhpur City (East) for alleged offences under Sections 61(2)(a), 62, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 336(4), 340(2), 341(2), 339, 342(1), 342(2) and 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Briefly, relevant facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was lodged on application/compliant filed by one Vishal Singh under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita [corresponding with Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C]. It was claimed that complainant had ancestral and possessory rights over 34 Bigha 11 Biswa of land in Khasra No. 519 in village Tinwari. The complaint stated that only the name of great-grandfather's brother was registered during the settlement process, which is currently pending in the Revenue Court, Osia and also Civil Court, Jodhpur. 2.1 The complainant alleged that Nirmala Purohit petitioner and others, concealed their American citizenship and used fraudulent documents to obtain Aadhaar cards to facilitate land purchase in India. The accused are said to have colluded with others to create fake documents and falsely claim Indian citizenship. It is alleged that a fraudulent land agreement was registered on April 17, 2023, in Tehsil Tinwari, favouring Narpat Singh Rajpurohit, another American citizen, who also allegedly obtained an Aadhaar card fraudulently. The petitioner is accused of misrepresenting herself as an Indian national. Hence the FIR. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard both the learned counsels as well as the learned Pubilc Prosecutor and have gone through the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that civil litigation is currently pending in the trial court, as acknowledged by the complainant in FIR No. 183/2024. The counsel argues that the complainant has lodged this FIR with the malicious intent to extort money from the innocent NRI petitioner and to blackmail her. The counsel contends that the present FIR is ex-facie mala fide. The continuation of the FIR, investigations and the subsequent criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the legal process, he urges. 4.1 The petitioner counsel would argue that the documents used to obtain Aadhaar cards are genuine and legally obtained. The counsel contends that the present FIR is ex-facie mala fide. The continuation of the FIR, investigations and the subsequent criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the legal process, he urges. 4.1 The petitioner counsel would argue that the documents used to obtain Aadhaar cards are genuine and legally obtained. Recent changes to Aadhaar guidelines allow NRIs to update their information either offline or online through the nearest Aadhaar Seva Kendra or the UIDAI website/mobile application, eliminating the previous requirement of a mandatory 182-day residency period for Aadhaar enrolment. Form 1 in Schedule I to the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations 2016, updated on January 16, 2024, specifies in Declaration (c) that an NRI can use a valid Indian passport for identification. Similarly, Form 2 also requires only a valid Indian passport. 5. Learned Public prosecutor at the very outset submits that once an FIR is registered law will take its own course and no indulgence of this Court is warranted. He submits that in case after investigation, it is found that no offence is committed, an appropriate report in accordance with law will be filed before the competent Court. 5.1 Conversely, in case the petitioner is found involved in commission of any offence in that event, she must face the charges and vindicate her stand at the trial. 6. Learned counsel representing the complainant states that, according to the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016, and the circular issued by UIDAI, a resident must have physically resided in India for at least 182 days within the 12 months preceding their application for Aadhaar enrolment. The counsel argues that the accused fraudulently obtained Aadhaar cards by providing false demographic or biometric information, constituting an offence under the Aadhaar Act. 6.1 Furthermore, the counsel highlights that the accused forged documents to misrepresent their residency status, which is punishable under Section 318(4) and 336(3) of B.N.S. This fraudulent misrepresentation facilitated their acquisition of Aadhaar cards and enabled the illegal sale of disputed property, clearly falling within the parameters of this offence. 7. Having heard the rival contentions, as noted above, and after perusal of the case file and the FIR, the sum and substance emerging from the complainant’s stand is that since the petitioner has misrepresented facts while getting the AADHAAR card issued, therefore, she has committed an offence of forgery for personal gain as envisaged under Section 318(4) of BNS. 7. Having heard the rival contentions, as noted above, and after perusal of the case file and the FIR, the sum and substance emerging from the complainant’s stand is that since the petitioner has misrepresented facts while getting the AADHAAR card issued, therefore, she has committed an offence of forgery for personal gain as envisaged under Section 318(4) of BNS. 8. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to notice the relevant provisions of sub-sections (1) and (4) Section 318 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which for ready reference, are reproduced herein below:- 318. Cheating.- (1) Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently pr 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 is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat. Explanation.- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception wihin the meaning of this sectin. Xxx xxxx xxxx (4) 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.” Xxx xxx xxxx 9. The submission of learned counsel for the complainant based on the relevant allegations in the complaint is that the petitioner-accused forged documents to misrepresent her residency status, by fraudulent misrepresentation procured/ acquired of Aadhaar card, which enabled the illegal sale of disputed property which makes her liable for offence under section 318(4) of the BNS. 10. I am unable to accept his aforesaid contention. 10. I am unable to accept his aforesaid contention. The plain language of Section 318 sub-section (1) and (4) of BNS shows that for applicability of sub-section (4), it is essential that firstly; the deception by the accused must lead the person deceived, to do or omit to do an act which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and secondly; such deception causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person (i.e. the person deceived) in body, mind, reputation or property. 11. In the case in hand, the petitioner-accused allegedly forged documents to misrepresent her residency status and by fraudulent misrepresentation procured/ acquired of Aadhaar card. To my mind, the issuance of Aadhaar card to the petitioner, by the concerned public authority/servant on the basis of allegedly false information given by the petitioner accused, by itself, cannot be said to have caused or likely to cause damage or harm to the concerned public authority/servant in body, mind, reputation or property. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that ex-facie the FIR does not disclose the commission of an offence under section 318 sub-section (4) of BNS. 12. A perusal of the complainant’s factual narrative in the light of sub-section(4) ibid clearly reveals that as far as complainant is concerned, there is no misrepresentation or impersonation committed by him. To that extent, no offence has been committed so as to prejudice him in any manner. 13. As regards the other offences ascribed to the petitioner, none of the essential ingredients, which are sine qua non are not made out from the allegations in the FIR. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, and in my opinion, rightly so, that the complainant has lodged this FIR with the malicious intent to extort money from the innocent NRI petitioner and to blackmail her. To me it appears that dispute between the complainant and the petitioner over property purely civil in nature for which they are already litigating in civil Court. Civil dispute has been given the colour of criminality and the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner, in abuse of the process of law. 15. As averred in the petition, civil litigation is currently pending in the trial Court is duly acknowledged by the complainant himself in FIR No. 183/2024. Civil dispute has been given the colour of criminality and the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner, in abuse of the process of law. 15. As averred in the petition, civil litigation is currently pending in the trial Court is duly acknowledged by the complainant himself in FIR No. 183/2024. The same will determine the inter se rights of the parties. 16. As an upshot of above discussion, the petition is allowed and impugned FIR No.183/2024 dated 23.08.2024 registered at Police Station Mathania, District Jodhpur City (East) is quashed qua the petitioner. 17. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.