ORDER : ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J. 1. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner/revisionist assailing the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Jaipur Metro-First in Criminal Revision No.812/2019 whereby the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner/revisionist and affirmed the order dated 29.06.2018 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jaipur Metro, accepting the negative final report (No.399A/2012) filed by the investigating agency in connection with FIR No.104/2009, Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner/complainant submitted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 21 Jaipur Metro, inter alia alleging that in 2001, he was working on the post of Professor in MRCE, Jaipur and was living with his wife, respondent No.2 herein and his son at D-61, Staff Colony, MRCE Jaipur. It is alleged in the complaint that on 19.09.2001, passports of his wife and son were issued from the Passport Office, Jaipur and thereafter, he along with his wife and son went to England for his job purpose. It is alleged that the respondent wife and her family members were pressurizing him to do everything as per their choice. On 29.11.2004, the petitioner along with his wife and children, came to India. However, the co-accused Nos.2 to 5, took away his wife and valuables against his wishes while saying that they would send her at his house after one week. However, when his wife did not return to him, he inquired into the matter and came to know that she along with her son had gone to foreign whereas the original passports of both his wife and son were with him. It is also alleged in the complaint that on enquiry, it was further come to his knowledge that his wife i.e., respondent No.2 in connivance with other co-accused filed a report regarding missing of her passport at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar and on the basis of this false report, succeeded in getting the duplicate passport. The learned trial court forwarded the matter for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the SHO Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur whereupon an FIR No.104/2009 for offences punishable under Sections 193, 194, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC came to be registered. The learned trial court forwarded the matter for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the SHO Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur whereupon an FIR No.104/2009 for offences punishable under Sections 193, 194, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC came to be registered. After completion of the investigation, the police filed negative final report in the Court concerned. Being dissatisfied with negative final report, the petitioner-complainant filed protest petition and got examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner/complainant on the point of cognizance, vide order dated 29.06.2018, accepted the negative final report and rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner-complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner- complainant challenged the order dated 29.06.2018 by way of filing revision petition before learned Revisional Court. However, the learned Revisional Court also vide its order dated 09.10.2023, dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 29.06.2018. Hence this misc. petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that trial magistrate as well as learned revisional court have committed grave illegality in dismissing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner/complainant. Counsel further submits that from the material available on record, it is evident that false report was given by the respondent no.2 before the concerned SHO with regard to loss/missing of passports belonging to her and her children. Counsel further submits that similar application was submitted before the passport authority in order to obtain a fresh passports. Counsel further submits that it is also evident from the record that her passport was impounded. In appeal, filed by the respondent no.2, it was held by the Appellate Authority that on the basis of false information, second passports were obtained by her but considering the fact that petitioner who is the husband of the respondent No.2/accused has no right to retain her passport, the impounding order was set aside and penalty of Rs.10,000/-was imposed. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of cognizance, only requirement of law is to consider the averments made in the complaint and meticulous examination of complaint is not required. He thus, prays that the misc. petition may be accepted and the orders impugned passed by learned revisional court as well as learned trial court may be set aside. 5. He thus, prays that the misc. petition may be accepted and the orders impugned passed by learned revisional court as well as learned trial court may be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned state counsel submits that both the courts have not committed any error in turning down the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for criminal prosecution of the respondent no.2/wife. Learned State counsel further submits that relationship between both husband and wife are not cordial and as thus, criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner are nothing but to wreck vengeance. The investigating agency after conducting thorough investigation in the matter has filed negative final report in the matter. He further submits that the appeal under Section 11 of the Passport Act, 1967, preferred by the respondent wife before the concerned authority has been decided after considering each and every aspect of the matter. The appellate authority has observed in its order that the petitioner husband has no locus or right to retain the passport of his wife and that it is a matrimonial dispute and therefore, impounding of the passport was cancelled and fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed upon her. He thus, craves dismissal of the misc. petition. 6. I have heard both parties and have gone through the material available on record. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that petitioner and respondent no.2 got married and they are blessed with two children. It is also admitted fact that relations between them are not cordial and divorce petition has also been filed. It is also evident that another complaint was made by the petitioner before the regional passport officer in this regard wherein finally respondent/accused was found guilty and her passport was impounded. However, the impounding of the passport was cancelled in the appeal filed by the respondent wife before the appellate authority and a penalty of Rs.10,000 /- was imposed upon her. In the present case it has been alleged by the petitioner that offences punishable under Sections 193, 194, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC have been committed by the respondent No.2. 8. To take cognizance, it is required for the court to record its prima facie satisfaction that ingredients of forgery and cheating are prima facie established. In the present case it has been alleged by the petitioner that offences punishable under Sections 193, 194, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC have been committed by the respondent No.2. 8. To take cognizance, it is required for the court to record its prima facie satisfaction that ingredients of forgery and cheating are prima facie established. To constitute an offence under section 420 IPC, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived- (I) To deliver any property to any person, or (II) To make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security) 9. I do not find any such situation in this case as no wrongful loss has been caused to the petitioner by the respondent/accused and in my view as the ingredients of cheating as stated in the section 415 IPC are not found, it cannot be said there was an offence punishable under section 420 IPC. 10. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the 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 setting scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, 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. So far as the offence of cheating (Section 420 IPC) is concerned, it is no case of the prosecution that the petitioner induced anybody dishonestly and thereby deceived such person to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security, therefore, ex-facie, the offence of cheating is not made out against the petitioner from the admitted allegations of the prosecution. 11. 11. As regards the offence under Section 406 IPC, there has to be an allegation that accused was entrusted with some valuable security, which was subsequently misappropriated. Admittedly, there is no such allegation of the prosecution in the instant case. Therefore, no offence under Section 406 IPC as set out in the FIR can be said to have been made out against the accused in this case. 12. From the facts available on record it can only be gathered that respondent No.2 /accused has obtained the second passport on the basis of false information or declaration, which is punishable under section 177 IPC and 182 of IPC. If FIR lodged by the petitioner is taken at its face value then it can be said that false information was given to the SHO concerned and to obtain the second passport, false declaration was made to the passport officer and in such circumstances, at highest, the offences, if any, which can be said to be made out against the accused would be offences under Sections 177 and 182 of the IPC, which read as under: "177. Furnishing false information.- Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." “182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.-- Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant (a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. For the purpose launching a prosecution for the offence under Sections 177 and 182 IPC, the prosecution can only be launched as per Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. which reads as under: "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.- (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code. (45 of 1860) or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence. except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate." 13. Considering the aforesaid fact situation and provisions of law, I am of the considered view that only offences under section 177 and 182 IPC can be said to be made out but for launching prosecution for both offences, it is mandatory that the public servant before whom the false information has been furnished files a complaint for the court to take cognizance of the offence. It is also apparent from the record that essentially there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and petitioner wants to settle the personal score in the garb of criminal proceedings. It is also apparent from the record that essentially there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and petitioner wants to settle the personal score in the garb of criminal proceedings. I fortify my view from the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mariam Fasihuddin and Anr vs State by Adugodi Police Station reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 58 where in almost identical fact situation, Hon’ble Apex Court, while quashing impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of it, has held as under:- “23. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made.” 24. It is well known that every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. Some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC. It must also be understood that a statement of fact is deemed ‘deceitful’ when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss. ‘Cheating’ therefore, generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement. 25. The term ‘property’ employed in Section 420 IPC has a well-defined connotation. Every species of valuable right or interest that is subject to ownership and has an exchangeable value - is ordinarily understood as ‘property’. It also describes one's exclusive right to possess, use and dispose of a thing. 25. The term ‘property’ employed in Section 420 IPC has a well-defined connotation. Every species of valuable right or interest that is subject to ownership and has an exchangeable value - is ordinarily understood as ‘property’. It also describes one's exclusive right to possess, use and dispose of a thing. The IPC itself defines the term ‘moveable property’ as, “intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.” Whereas immoveable property is generally understood to mean land, benefits arising out of land and things attached or permanently fastened to the earth. ******************** The offence of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC 33. The offence of ‘forgery’ under Section 468 IPC postulates that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic document forged, shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Whereas Section 471 IPC states that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any documents which he knows or has reason to believe it to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. 34. There are two primary components that need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of ‘forgery’, namely : (i) that the accused has fabricated an instrument; and (ii) it was done with the intention that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating. Simply put, the offence of forgery requires the preparation of a false document with the dishonest intention of causing damage or injury. 35. The offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as the act of forgery is committed with the intent to deceive or cheat an individual. Having extensively addressed the aspect of dishonest intent in the context of ‘cheating’ under Section 420 IPC, it stands established that no dishonest intent can be made out against the Appellants. Our focus therefore will now be confined, for the sake of brevity, to the first element, i.e., the preparation of a false document. The determination of whether the Appellants prepared a false document, by forging Respondent No. 2's signature, however, cannot be even prima facie ascertained at this juncture. Our focus therefore will now be confined, for the sake of brevity, to the first element, i.e., the preparation of a false document. The determination of whether the Appellants prepared a false document, by forging Respondent No. 2's signature, however, cannot be even prima facie ascertained at this juncture. Considering the primary ingredient of dishonest intention itself could not be established against the Appellants, the offence of forgery too, has no legs to stand. It is also significant to highlight that the proceedings as against the concerned Passport Officer, who was implicated as Accused No.4, already stand quashed. In such like situation and coupled with the nature of allegations, we are unable to appreciate as to why the Appellants be subjected to the ordeal of trial. 36. That apart, there are glaring procedural irregularities that have been overlooked by the Trial Magistrate, which warrants examination. It is extremely important to delve into these improprieties since the supplementary chargesheet filed by the investigating authority included the offence of ‘forgery’ under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.” 14. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial court as well as learned revisional court have not committed any illegality or perversity in accepting the negative final report submitted by the investigating agency. From the material available on record, it is clear that no cognizable offences have been found to be made out against the accused respondent. At best, offences under Sections 177 and 182 IPC are prima facie made out which are non-cognizable offences. The cognizance of such offences can be taken only at the instance of the prescribed authority. No complaint to that effect has been disclosed against the accused respondent. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the orders impugned warranting interference therein. 15. Accordingly, the misc. petition stands dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of.