JUDGMENT S.C. Majumdar, J. This is an application in Revision against an order of framing of a charge by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta Shri B.C. Pal who by his order dated 5.10.77 framed a charge under S. 414 of the Indian Penal Code in G.R. Case No. 12 of 1976, against the petitioner Dr. A.K. Majumder. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the facts of the prosecution case taken as a whole, a charge under S. 419 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be framed and therefore, it is prayed that the charge farmed under S. 419 I.P.C. may be quashed. The only point for consideration is whether on the basis of the prosecution statements and documents on record a prime facie case under S. 419 I.P.C. had been made out. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused petitioner falsely introduced himself to be the Commissioner of the Burdwan Division and Ex Officio Chairman of the Housing Board, of the Govt. of West Bengal and on such introduction told the de fecto-complainant D.N. Ghosh that he was in a position to attest to some documents which were to be forwarded to the Bokaro Steel. On the request of the de facto complainants, the petitioner attested the document with the designation as Chairman of the Housing Board so that the de facto complainant could use it in the Bokaro Steel. In view of the statement of the de facto complainant under S. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure together with all the documents in the case diary, the learned Magistrate did not frame a charge against the petitioner under S. 466 I.P.C. but framed a charge under S. 419 holding that the accused made a false representation and the representation was false to the knowledge of the accused. It was also opined by the learned Magistrate that the complainant could have suffered damage in reputation and mind but for the finally recalling of the documents and for the purpose of replacing them by genuinely attested documents. In other words it was the opinion of the learned Magistrate that the act of the accused was likely to cause damage or harm to the reputation of the complainant and so he framed charge. Let us see whether S. 419 applies on the facts of the case. In other words it was the opinion of the learned Magistrate that the act of the accused was likely to cause damage or harm to the reputation of the complainant and so he framed charge. Let us see whether S. 419 applies on the facts of the case. From the case diary and documents on record the opinion of the learned Magistrate is that the accused made a false representation. The question is whether a false statement simpliter without more can attract the provisions of S. 419 I.P.C. The learned lawyer for the petitioner also admitted that the accused made a false representation. 3. Section 419 I.P.C. is based on S. 415 in which the offence of cheating has been defined. The section requires 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". 4. Section 419 I.P.C. is cheating by personation i.e. where a person deceives by setting up himself as a person whom he knows is a different person. In this particular case it is proved from the documents and the statements, that the accused petitioner made a representation to the effect that he was the Chairman of the Housing Board and in that personated capacity attested the documents. But it is clear from the facts on record that nothing was suffered by the de facto complainant as the de facto complainant did not part with any property and the de facto complainant also did not suffer any harm in body mind, reputation or property as the said documents were never used for any purpose to the benefit of the petitioner or to the detriment of the de facto complainant. Thus taking the prosecution facts on the face value, S. 419 I.P.C. is not attracted to the present case. 5. Therefore, in our opinion it is not a fit case where a charge under S. 419 I.P.C. could be framed. Thus taking the prosecution facts on the face value, S. 419 I.P.C. is not attracted to the present case. 5. Therefore, in our opinion it is not a fit case where a charge under S. 419 I.P.C. could be framed. Thus the Rule is made absolute and the charge under S. 419 I.P.C. is hereby quashed. P.C. Borooah J. I agree. Rule made absolute.