- (1.) This application is directed against the order dated 09/07/2012, passed in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 16/05/2011, passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 1304 of 2006, refusing to discharge the petitioners from the accusation, was affirmed. 2. According to Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the case of the complainant is that one Institute/ Organization named as Indian Institute of Science had been registered under the Societies Registration Act, in the State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State bylaws of the said Institute was amended whereby the name of the Institute was changed as Institute of Science and Management. Since, on formation of the State of Jharkhand, the said Institute was required to be registered under the Societies Registration Act, the complainant filled up prescribed application alongwith amended memorandum of association, Rules and Regulations of the Society, which were to be placed before the I.G., Registration for grant of fresh registration certificate. Since, the complainant had to leave the station, the said application as well as memorandum of association signed by him were handed over to the petitioner no. 1 Rana Anil Kumar Verma for producing it before the I.G., Registration, but petitioner no. 1 changed the memorandum of association and application and placed it before I.G., Registration by putting forged signature of the complainant whereby the complainant was removed from the Directorship and in his place petitioner no. 1 has put himself as Director and other petitioners, i.e. petitioner nos. 23, being the family members, were made the office bearers. On such, allegation, a complaint was lodged, upon which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 418, 465, 504 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners. Subsequently, the complainant adduced the witnesses before charge and thereupon, the discharge application was filed taking plea that no offence of cheating is made out and further all the petitioners cannot be held liable to be prosecuted for the offence of forgery even if the entire allegations are taken to be true. That application was dismissed. Against that order, a criminal revision application was preferred, whereby the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved with that, this application has been filed. 3. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accepting the entire allegations to be true, no offence whatsoever is made out under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code as the petitioners have never been alleged to have defrauded the complainant in any manner. Further, it was submitted that so far petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, nothing has come to show that they have connived with petitioner no. 1 and in furtherance of the connivance, they have been made office bearers and, as such, no offence is made out under Section 465 IPC against petitioner nos. 2 to 4, but none of the Court below, did appreciate the submission in right perspective and, hence, the orders passed by it are fit to be set aside. 4. As against this, Mr. Murari, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that the manner in which the petitioner no. 1 has put himself to the post of Director of the Institute clearly suggests that it is a case of cheating. Further, it was submitted that so far as petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, they undisputedly were made beneficiaries by the documents, which were forged by petitioner no.1 and, as such, their connivance appears to be apparent and moreover, they are also operating the accounts of the Institute. It was further submitted that apart from those allegations, they have also been alleged to have committed offence of criminal intimidation. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that it is the case of the complainant that for the purpose of getting the Institute, named as Institute of Science and Management, registered under the Societies Registration Act, necessary application was filled up to be placed it before I.G., Registration, alongwith amended memorandum of association for getting a certificate of Registration. Since the complainant had to leave the station on account of some urgent piece of work, relevant documents were handed over to petitioner no. 1 for placing it before I.G., Registration. The petitioner no. 1 has changed the memorandum of association and application by forging the signature of the complaint and placed it before I.G., Registration. By doing this the petitioner no. 1 has put himself on the post of the Director of the Institute, whereas as per the original application, it is the complainant, who was supposed to be the Director of the Institute. But the question does arise that as to whether any offence under Section 418 is made out. 6. The offence of cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows: "Cheating Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or 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 or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat .  7. From its reading, it appears that following ingredients should necessarily be there for constituting offence of cheating : "(1) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the person alleged to have deceived the complainant. (2) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. (3) in cases covered by 2(b) the Act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in bodily or reputation or property.  8. The first two elements, necessary for constituting the offence of cheating, seems to be lacking in the instant case as it has never been the case of the complainant that by practicing deception, petitioner no. 1 did get hold of the necessary application alongwith all the relevant documents for getting the Institute registered under the Societies Registration Act, rather it is the complainant, who willingly handed over all those documents to petitioner no. 1 and, thereby, the petitioner no. 1 never appears to have deceived the complainant in any manner and, as such, the offence as stipulated under Section 418 IPC, never gets attracted. In such situation, the Courts below have certainly committed illegality in holding that the offence is made out under Section 418 IPC. 9. So far as the other offence relating to forgery is concerned, it is the specific case of the complainant that petitioner no. 1 had put forth the signature of the complainant. Further, according to the case of the complainant, the name of other petitioners, i.e. petitioner nos. 2 to 4, were never there in the application to be made as office bearers. But, by forging the documents, the name of these petitioners were inserted, who being the office bearers, are certainly the beneficiaries. Whether, it was the act of petitioner no. 1 or their name were added in connivance with petitioner no.1, it is to be ascertained during trial. Therefore, the Courts below did not commit any illegality in holding that primafacie offence is made out under Sections 465/120 B as well as Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Accordingly, that part of the order whereby the Court has held that the offence is made out under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby set aside. 11. Thus, this application is allowed but in part. 12. Any observation, made for the purpose of the disposal of this case, shall not be prejudicial to the case of the parties.;