JUDGMENT Uday Sinha, J. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the prosecution of the petitioners in CII Case No. 239 of 1979 pending before, R.N. Verma, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. 2. By order dated 30.6.1979 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar took cognizance of offence under section 82(c) of the Indian Registration Act, and issued processes against the petitioners. The cognizance was taken on the basis of complaint dated 5.5.1979 filed by Sub-registrar, Katihar. The facts alleged in the complaint were that two sale deed were executed by Mossamat Tetri Devi on 5.1.1979 and 6.1.1979. Petitioner No. 2 Sakaldip Mandal was the identifier in the sale deed registered on 8.1.1979. Azad Prasad Sah was the identifier in the sale deed executed on 6.1.1979. Under the deed of 5.1.1979 the vendee was Raghunath Mandal. Petitioner No. 1, where as under the deed of 6.1.1979 the vendee was Dharamraj Modi. While endorsement on the registration receipt was being checked, the clerk dealing with the delivery work got suspicious about the left thumb impression. He apprehended that the left thumb impression on the registration receipt did not tally with the left thumb impression on the deed. On deeper probe it was found that the left thumb impression of Tetri Devi on the two sale deeds did not tally. Thereupon, Tetri Devi was called to the registration office. In answer to the notice Tetri Devi appeared before the Sub registrar and gave her statement. In her statement she stated that she had executed only one deed and not two and that was in favour of Dharmaj Modi, who was her son-in-law and Sahaldip Yadav was the identifier. She stated that she did not know any Azad Prasad Sah. Tetri Devi denied having executed any sale deed in favour of Raghuath Mandal. From the conflicting pictures the Sub-Registrar arrived at two conclusions. Firstly, that Mossamat Tetri Devi had not given any land to Raghunath Mandal on 5.1.1979, but that Raghunath Mandal had got his name fraudulently entered in the deed. The second conclusion was that the deed executed on 6.1.1979 infravour of Dharmraj Modi was not genuine in the sense that the said document had not been executed by Tetri Devi, but by some body else. The second conclusion was that the deed executed on 6.1.1979 infravour of Dharmraj Modi was not genuine in the sense that the said document had not been executed by Tetri Devi, but by some body else. Upon the conclusions arrived at, the first conclusion does attract the provisions of section 82(c) of the Indian Registration Act, which reads as follows :- "82. Whoever XX XX XX (c) Falsely personates another and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission to be issued or does any other Act, in any proceeding or enquiry under this act; or xx xx XX shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with tine, or with both” It will be seen that in regard to the deed executed on 5.1.1979 Tetri Devi was genuine person. It is not in dispute that it was Tetri Devi, who had executed the deed. The allegation of false personation, therefore, must fall to the ground. So far as the allegation of inserting the name of Raghunath Mandal instead of Dharmaraj Modi cannot fall within the mischief of section 82(c) of the Indian Registration Act, for Raghunath Mandal had not presented that document. If the allegation is true it may be a case of forgery, but not of falsely personating another. There is no allegation that at the time of the execution of registration of the sale deed dated 5.1.1979 Raghunat Mandal represented himself to be Dharmraj Modi. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted in regard to the sale deed executed on 5.1.1979. 3. Then we come to the sale deed executed on 6.1.1979. It is alleged in the complaint that sine lady was made to stand in place of Mosamat Tetri Devi to admit the execution and to put her left thump impression. Now it is no body’s case that it was the petitioners, who put up someother lady to admit the execution and to put left thumb impression on the deed at the registration office. There can be no question of false presentation on any of the two deed, i.e. of 5.1.1979 or of 6.1.1979, as Mossamat Tetri Devi knew both Ragunath Mandal as well as Dharamaj Modi. There can be no question of false presentation on any of the two deed, i.e. of 5.1.1979 or of 6.1.1979, as Mossamat Tetri Devi knew both Ragunath Mandal as well as Dharamaj Modi. Raghunath Mandal was the brother of Tetri Devi’s husband and Dharamraj Modi was the son-in-law of Mosssamat Tetri Devi. The question of false personation, therefore, does not arise. On the date of execution of the sale deed dated 6.1.1979 Dharamraj Modi himself was present. In that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioners under section 82(c) of the Indian Registration Act, is misconceived. The groud of the allegation of Mossamat Tetri Devi in her evidence before the Sub-registrar is that she had not executed any document in favour of Raghunath Mandal. Thus upon her allegation the deed executed on 5.1.1979 was a forged document in the sense that it was meant to be executed in favour of Dharamraj Modi, but in place of Dharamraj Modi Raghunath Mandal has been mentioned as the Claimant. That may be a case of forgery or of cheating but certainly not of false personation. The prosecution of the petitioners, therefore, under section 82(c) of the Indian Registration Act, must be quashed. 4. For the reasons, stated above, the application is allowed and the prosecution of the petitioners in case no. CII 239 of 1979 is hereby quashed. Application allowed.