AMAR SARAN AND R.N.MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed pray­ing for quashing the FIR dated 27.4.2008 in Case Crime No. 1853 of 2008, under sec­tions 467, 468, 420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Dis­trict Mahoba, lodged by Respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, District Mahoba. The allegations in the FIR were that the petitioner, who was one of the persons who allegedly forged a transfer order which was presented in the department of respondent No. 4. On enquiry from the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Lucknow, it was discovered that the said order was forged.
(2.) IT was argued on behalf of the petitioner that on the allegations, only a case under sections 463 and 464 IPC could be disclosed which were non-cognizable offences. We are not in agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel as under section 471 IPC using of a forged document is punishable in the same manner as if it had been forged under section 468 IPC. Section 468 defines forgery for the purpose of cheating. The forged letter purporting to be originating from the office of the Chief Engineer was to be used for benefiting the petitioner, and his other colleagues, for ef­fecting their transfers which was not authorized. Thus, the offences under sec­tions 468 and 471 IPC could not be said to have been excluded in these circumstances. These offences are cognizable and, therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel that offences under sections 463 and 464 IPC are non-cognizable and that no investigation could have been done without an order of the Magistrate, has no legs to stand.
(3.) IT was further argued that no of­fence of cheating was made out as no one has deprived anyone of any property. It is made clear that under section 415 IPC if any person intentionally deceives and 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, he commits the offence of cheating. Clearly, but for the said allegedly forged letter the complainant could have been induced to unauthorizedly transfer the petitioner and others mentioned in the letter, which would have lowered his reputation and caused damage to him in body and mind. It is not very material that this was only at the stage of an attempt and the forgery in favour of the petitioner and the other accused was found out prior to their transfers being given effect to.;