Judgment S. Ali Ahmad, J. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jahanabad by his order dated the 19th April, 1974 took cognizance against the petitioners under sections 423 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and transferred the case to the trial court for disposal. The prayer made in this application is to quash the aforesaid order of taking cognizance. 2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the opposite party filed a petition of complaint on the 15th January, 1974 before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jahanabad complaining that petitioner no. 1 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner no. 2 on the 30th of December, 1971 transferring plot nos. 500 and 501. It was stated in that sale deed that these two plots originally belonged to the complainant-opposite party but by virtue of an exchange petitioner no. 1 got these plots which she was transferring to petitioner no. 2. This statement according to the complainant was false and was with a view to cheat him. The Sub-divisional Magistrate examined the complainant-opposite party on solemn affirmation and thereafter sent the matter for enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The enquiry report showed that a prima facie case had been made out. The Sub-divisional Magistrate thereafter accepting the inquiry report took cognizance on the 19th of April, 1974 as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the statements made in the petition of complaint do not constitute any offence at all. He also submitted that provisions of sections 423 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. Section 423 makes dishonest or fraudulent execution of a deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration punishable. The facts that I have mentioned above will show that the allegation is not regarding false statement of consideration relating to the person or persons for whose use or benefit it was intended to operate. The only allegation is that the statement regarding exchange of plot nos. 500 and 501 is false. Section 423 obviously, therefore, does not apply to the facts of this case. I am supported in my view on this point by a decision in Mathura Nath Sah Deo aud another Vs.. Birla Uraon. Likewise, in my opinion, section 468 also has no application. Forgery as defined under section 463 means making of false document. Section 423 obviously, therefore, does not apply to the facts of this case. I am supported in my view on this point by a decision in Mathura Nath Sah Deo aud another Vs.. Birla Uraon. Likewise, in my opinion, section 468 also has no application. Forgery as defined under section 463 means making of false document. As to what is false document is mentioned in section 464. Section 461 consists of three parts. Learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the facts of this case will attract the first part of section 464. I do not think his argument is correct. It will be useful to quote this part, which is as follows who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting execution of a document, with the intention of caussing it to be believed that such document or a part of a document was made, Signed, Sealed Or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed sealed or executed." A perusal of this part of the section will show that this part can be attracted only when the document purports to have been signed or sealed by a person, who in fact, never signed or sealed it. It is not the prosecution case that petitioner no. I purported to execute the document on behalf of any other person. The definite case as appears from the petition of complainant, is that petitioner no. 1 executed the document on his own behalf transferring plot nos. 500 and 501 which he claims to have acquired by exchange. Obviously, therefore, this document cannot be said to be a false document within the meaning of section 464. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that section 468 also has no application to the facts of this case. 4. Since the allegation do not make out any offence, the application is allowed and the order taking cognizance iss quashed. Application allowed.