Judgment NAGENDRA RAI, J. 1. Both the above applications arise out of the same matter and have been heard together and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Vijay Kumar Thakur, Lecturer in post graduate department of History, Patna University, is the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 8437 of 1986 and Shyam Bihari Singh and Rajiva Nandan Prasad, both retired University Professor and Head of the Departments of History, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya are petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 9013 of 1988. The petitioners in both the applications have challenged the order, dated 26-5-1986 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in complaint case No. 267(C) 1989 taking cognizance under Sections 465, 468, 489 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Shorn of all the details, the complainants case is that he is the Joint Convenor of Bihar Young Historian Group, an organization for fighting for academic freedom and for preservation of the reputation of the leading Historians of the nation. Late Dr. K. K. Dutta was a leading and eminent Historian of this country and was also known as reputed Historian all over the world. He wrote book known as "Biography of Kuer Singh and Amar Singh" which was published by K. P. Jaishwal Research Institute. The aforesaid book was widely appreciated by the all reputed Historians. The said book was reprinted by the aforesaid Institute in the year 1984 at that time when Shri P. N. Ojha was the officiating Director of the Institute and in reprint of the said book the name of its author Dr. K. K. Dutta was deleted and in his place the name of Sri P. N. Ojha, officiating Director of the Institute, was printed in the middle of the cover page of the book giving an impression that he (P. N.Ojha) was author of the book. Even in the preface of the book nothing was stated about the authorship of the book. The aforesaid action of Sri P. N. Ojha led to protest by the Young Historian Group and its members and others. The question were also raised at the floor of the Assembly with regard to the aforesaid misdeed done by Sri P. N. Ojha. 4. The aforesaid action of Sri P. N. Ojha led to protest by the Young Historian Group and its members and others. The question were also raised at the floor of the Assembly with regard to the aforesaid misdeed done by Sri P. N. Ojha. 4. The further case of the complainant is that Sri Ojha is in the habit of doing academic piracy and the other accused persons named in the complaint petition numbering fourteen working as Lecturers and Professors in the History Departments of different Universities use to get undue benefit and patronage from Sri Ojha. When the persons including the members of the Young Historian Group starts protesting against the aforesaid act of Sri Ojha in deleting the name of Sri Dutta and printing his name in place of Sri K. K. Dutta, the accused persons including the petitioners conspiracy together and intentionally and knowingly made a false document in the nature of statement said to be signed by 18 eminent Historians. The said false document created by the accused persons contained derogatory and defamatory remarks against Dr. V. C. Chaudhary, a Historian and the same was published in the daily local English newspaper "The Indian Nation; on 25-7-85 with the Heading "Historians urge C. M. to prevent appointment." It was stated therein inter alia, that they saw nothing wrong so far as the reputation of late Dr. K. K. Dutta and his work biography of Kuer Singh and Amar Singh is concerned. After the publication of the aforesaid news two of the signatories of the said statement Dr. 0. P. Jaiswal and Dr. R. Prasad contradicted the above item and asserted that they did not sign the above memorandum published in. the Indian Nation. The publication of the news item and denial of the two signatures raised suspicion in the mind of the members of the Bihar, Young Historian Group that accused persons have entered into conspiracy and committed the forgery and got the statement published in the newspaper to protect Sri P. N. Ojha who had benefited the accused persons by digerent means and ways. The members enquired into the matter and thereafter legal notices were sent on behalf of Young Historian Group to all the signatories of the aforesaid statement and were requested to support or contradict the statement and thereafter only two of them namely Dr. Bhagwat Sahay and Dr. The members enquired into the matter and thereafter legal notices were sent on behalf of Young Historian Group to all the signatories of the aforesaid statement and were requested to support or contradict the statement and thereafter only two of them namely Dr. Bhagwat Sahay and Dr. Saehidanand Sahay denied their signatures on the statement published in the Indian Nation. Sri P. Pathak, accused No. 12 described in the complaint petition, accepted and owned his signature over the memorandum of the news. It is further asserted that the accused persons made a false document in conspiracy with one another by fraudulently signing in the name of eminent historiant including Dr. S. Sahay and Dr. Bhagwat Sahay with a view to harm the reputation of Dr. K. K. Dutta and dishonestly got the same published in the Indian Nation with a view to protect the illegal act of Sri P. N. Ojha. 5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna examined the complainant on Solemn Affirmation on 9-10-85 and thereafter postponed the issuance of processes and decided to hold enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint examined four witnesses namely Prof. Shyam Karan Prasad Singh, Prof. Prabhakar Prasad Singh, Dr.S. N. Sahay and Dr. Bhagwat Sahay. The complainant also filed the news published in the Indian Nation on 25-7-1985. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the entire matter took cognizance by the impugned order (word cognizance appears to be a mistake as the cognizance had already been taken) and ordered for issuance of process against them for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present prosecution is an abuse of the process of the Court. A bare perusal of the complaint petition shows that there are two groups among the Historians, one led by the complainant opposite party and other by the accused persons and because of the differences between them the present prosecution has been lodged. They further submitted that from reading the complaint petition and the materials on the records, the case of forgery and other connected offences are not made out in this case even if the complaint, the statement of the complainant and other materials on record are taken on its face value. 7. They further submitted that from reading the complaint petition and the materials on the records, the case of forgery and other connected offences are not made out in this case even if the complaint, the statement of the complainant and other materials on record are taken on its face value. 7. Elaborating their submissions it was stated that the gist of the prosecution allegation is that Dr. P. N. Ojha got his name printed on the cover page and different pages of the book at the time of reprinting of the book written by Late Dr. K. K. Dutta. The petitioners who are alleged to have got patronage and fayour from Dr. P. N. Ojha with a view to safe him, got the news published alleged to be signed by 18 Historians in favour of Sri Ojha by forging signatures of some of them and thus committed forgery and other connected offences. The aforesaid statements, according to the learned counsel, will not constitute an offence of forgery and other connected offences. Only making false document is not sufficient to constitute forgery unless the allegation shows that the false document was made dishonestly and fraudulently. According to the learned counsel, in this case even if it is assumed that false document was made then there is nothing to show that this was done fraudulently or dishonestly. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complaint opposite party contended that the allegation on the record clearly makes out a case of forgery under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and this Court at the initial stage will not consider the defence version and will not appreciate the materials as a trial Court to find out whether the allegations are correct or incorrect or will be proved or not by adducing evidence by the complainant. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record the questions to be determined in this case are as to whether the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the Court, criminal complaint petition has been filed because of oblique purpose and as to whether in the facts and circumstances the allegations constitute an offence of forgery or not. No doubt, at the initial stage, the Court has to see whether the allegations constitute an offence or not and if the allegations are there this Court in exercise of inherent power will not quash the proceeding at the threshold. However, if the materials or record show that the case has been instituted for different purpose and not for punishing the accused for the acts and omission constituting an offence then this Court will not allow the process of the Court to be abused by the complainant-opposite party. The Supreme Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another V/s. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709 , has observed as follows : "The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." 10. As stated above cognizance has been taken under Sections 465, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 465 prescribe punishment for forgery and other Sections prescribe punishment for aggravated form of forgery. Forgery has been defined under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code which provides, inter alia, that whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implies contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, is said to have committed forgery. The definition of false document is given in Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code and according to which a person is said to make a false document in three instances. The relevant provision applicable in the present case is first clause which provides inter alia that whoever dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals, or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed, 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 is said to have made a false document. A bare reading of the aforesaid two sections shows that unless a false document as defined under Section 464 is created no offence of forgery will be made out and Section 464 contains two essential elements namely that the acts should be done dishonestly and/or fraudulently. If accused does an act or omission with the intention as mentioned in 463 the said act or omission by itself will not constitute an offence of forgery in absence of dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the accused person. Mere making a false document will not amount to forgery. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party submitted that the law requires that there should be only intention to defraud by the accused and there is no requirement that there should be actual injury to any person. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Vimla V/s. The Delhi Administration, reported AIR 1963 SC 1572 in support of his submission. It has been held in paragraph 14 of the said judgment which runs as follows : "To summarise : the expression "defraud" involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied." 12. Now the facts of the case have to be considered in the light of the submissions made above. In the complaint petition, it is stated that news which was published by the petitioners and others contained statement jeopardising the interest of Dr. V. C. Chaudhary for the post of Director and promoting the case of Mr. P. N. Ojha for the said post. The other allegation is that the statement made/published in the newspaper to the effect that there was nothing wrong in so far as reputation of Late Dr. K. K. Dutta and his work Biography of Kuer Singh and Amar Nath Singh is concerned contained forged signatures of some of the Historians. So far as the first allegation is concerned, no offence is made out as the same is only a request to the competent authority to make appointment of suitable person. Regarding the second allegation even if it is accepted that some of the signatures were forged then it would amount that the document was a false document but even then offence of forgery is not capable in absence of other ingredients. There was no wrongful gain to the petitioners-accused persons or to any other persons nor there was any wrongful loss to either V. C. Chaudhary or to Late Dr. K. K. Dutta, or to any other person. It cannot be said that the aforesaid news was published fraudulently or dishonestly. In absence of any of the two ingredients the offence of forgery is not made out in this case. K. K. Dutta, or to any other person. It cannot be said that the aforesaid news was published fraudulently or dishonestly. In absence of any of the two ingredients the offence of forgery is not made out in this case. I must observe in this case that the complaint petition runs into several paragraphs and wholly irrelevant facts have been stated in several paragraphs After going through the complaint petition it appears that the object for filing the complaint petition is not to punish the accused persons for their acts or omission but is to harass the petitioners because of differences between the two groups of Historians. 13. At this stage, I cannot look into the materials of the defence but from the statement made in the complaint petition which is not controverted by the other side it is clear that the mistake occurred at the time; of the reprint of the aforesaid book was noticed by the authorities and then the said mistake was rectified. It further appears from the record that the complainant has made fourteen persons as accused who all are Lecturers and Professors of the department of History in the different Universities and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that there was no material against eleven of them. Out of the four witnesses only one witness namely, Prof. Prabhakar Prasad Singh has stated about the meeting held at the house of one of the petitioners namely, Shyam Bihari Singh and there a decision was taken to get the news published and signature of some of the persons were forged. The other three witnesses have not stated anything against the petitioners. The aforesaid infirmities lead me to infer that the present complaint petition has been filed with an oblique motive. The complainant has filed the present case not with the view to put them on trial for an act and omission constituting an offence of forgery but for the purpose of harassing the accused persons. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and the prosecution of the petitioners is only an abuse of the process of the Court. 14. In the result, both the applications are allowed and the order dated 26-5-1986 taking cognizance against the petitioners is set aside and the prosecution of the petitioners is quashed.