JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:--Shri Trimbak Sadashiv Lolge, resident of Putamba, died on 22nd April, 1973. He was holding 80 shares of Great Eastern Shipping Company and 25 shares of Changdeo Sugar Mills Limited, Bombay. An application under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was moved by Yamunabai Trimbak Lolge, wife of deceased Trimbak, in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Kopargaon. In this application, Vasant, Ramesh, Dattatraya and Sulochana, three sons and a daughter of deceased Trimbak, were shown to be other heirs. A public notice was issued in daily "Prabhat" published from Pune on 12th May, 1990 calling objections and since no objections were received, application came to be allowed by the learned Judge on 20th June, 1990. Gangadhar Trimbak Lolge claiming to be step-son of Yamunabai filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Kopargaon on 20th February, 1992 alleging that knowing fully well that the complainant Gangadhar is also one of the heirs of Trimbak, he was not shown to be the heir and a public notice was published in daily "Prabhat" in Pune District, so that the complainant should not come to know of the pending proceedings, an order was sought by collusion between Yamunabai and other heirs shown in the application excluding complainant Gangadhar. The learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to issue process for the offence under section 464, 462, 427 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code vide his order dated 27th March, 1992. This Criminal Application prays for quashing the said process. 2. Accused-applicants Vasant, Ramesh, Dattatraya and Sulochana were not the applicants for the succession certificate. Succession Certificate is granted only in the name of Yamunabai. There is nothing averred in the complaint or in the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate which goes to show that accused-applicant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 had played any positive role in the alleged proceedings except giving consent to the application filed by their mother. It is difficult to understand why the learned Magistrate has issued process against these accused persons. 3. The facts alleged in the complaint are that the name of the complainant Gangadhar was not shown as one of the heirs. It is difficult to understand why the learned Magistrate has issued process against these accused persons. 3. The facts alleged in the complaint are that the name of the complainant Gangadhar was not shown as one of the heirs. Notice was published in daily " Prabhat" which is published from Pune and it was with the intention that the complainant should not come to know of the pendency of this application and the third allegation is that by collusion the succession certificate was obtained and the share amount was received by the accused persons. Succession certificate is admittedly in the name of Yamunabai and none of the other accused have received the amount since shares were transferred in the name of Yamunabai. Since the learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to issue process under sections 464, 462, 427 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, it will have to be seen whether there were grounds to proceed against any of the accused persons under the aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code. 4. Section 427 of Indian Penal Code provides for the punishment for the offence of mischief. "Mischief" has been defined under section 425 of Indian Penal Code which reads as under :- "Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief"" No contention raised in the complaint or evidence makes any allegation about wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person. To constitute an offence of "mischief", it is necessary that loss should be caused by unlawful means of the property to which person suffering loss is legally entitled. The property subject to the loss must be tangible property capable of being physically destroyed. It does not include the abstract right including the right of ownership. Any claim to a property even if falsely made will not amount to "mischief". An application moved to an authority vested with some powers under a statute to decide the entitlement to a property can never be interpreted to be a mischief within the meaning of section 425 of Indian Penal Code. Any claim to a property even if falsely made will not amount to "mischief". An application moved to an authority vested with some powers under a statute to decide the entitlement to a property can never be interpreted to be a mischief within the meaning of section 425 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, assuming that a wrong claim was filed by Yamunabai without mentioning that Gangadhar is one of the persons entitled to the share in the said property viz. shares of the two Companies, such application is not mischief within the meaning of section 425 of Indian Penal Code and the applicants cannot be punished under section 427 of the said Code. The second offence for which the process has been issued is under section 462 of Indian Penal Code. An offence under section 462 of Indian Penal Code is an aggravated form of the offence made punishable under section 461 of Indian Penal Code. If somebody dishonestly or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens any closed receptacle which contains or which believes to contain property, can be punished under section 461 of I.P.C. and if he was entrusted with the custody of the said receptacle, he can be punished under section 462 of I.P.C. There is absolutely nothing in the complaint or in the evidence alleging any offence which can be punished under section 462 of I.P.C. Therefore, the process should not have been issued under section 462 of I.P.C. also. The last offence for which the process issued is under section 464 of I.P.C. Section 464 defines as to when a person can be said to have made a false document. It is the sort of explanation to section 463 which defines forgery and the offence is punishable under section 465. It is not the case of complainant that any false document was made by any of the accused persons dishonestly or fraudulently by signing, sealing or executing with intention of causing it to be believed that it was made signed, sealed or executed by some other person. Making an application to a Court or a lawful authority in the real name of the applicant can never be interpreted to be a forgery or making a false document. Therefore, there was nothing in the complaint which could serve as a ground to believe that any of the accused persons might have committed this offence. Making an application to a Court or a lawful authority in the real name of the applicant can never be interpreted to be a forgery or making a false document. Therefore, there was nothing in the complaint which could serve as a ground to believe that any of the accused persons might have committed this offence. This is a case of total non-application of mind by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the process was issued when the complaint does not disclose any offence. If no offence is disclosed in the complaint, the process issued will have to be quashed to save innocent persons from the abuse of the process of the Court. 5. The dispute involved in the case appears to be purely of the civil nature. A step-son was sought to be excluded from the benefits of process of certain shares held by deceased father. He could have taken proper recourse before the appropriate authorities. But instead of doing it, he chose to file a criminal complaint. If the dispute raised by the respondent is purely of civil nature, filing of a criminal case would be abuse of the process of law. As was held by the Supreme Court in (Trilok Singh others v. Satya Deo Tripathi)1, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 850, such a process will have to be quashed by exercise of the inherent powers declared under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Complainant-respondent is always at liberty to take such legal steps as are permissible under civil law. 6. Publication of the required notice by the Court in daily "Prabhat" published from Pune is alleged to be part of the design of accused-applicants to keep complainant away from the enquiry. Section 373 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires that such a notice to be posted on some conspicuous part of the Court - house and published in such other manner, if any, as the Judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit. The notice was directed to be published by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate and he had exercised his discretion under the provision. Accused-applicants cannot be blamed for such publication. 7. In the result, Criminal Application is allowed. The notice was directed to be published by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate and he had exercised his discretion under the provision. Accused-applicants cannot be blamed for such publication. 7. In the result, Criminal Application is allowed. The order of issuance of process issued under sections 464, 462, 427 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class).Kopargaon, against petitioners - accused 1 to 5 in Criminal Case bearing number R.T.C. 97 of 1992 on 27th March, 1992 is hereby quashed and also the said complaint is dismissed under the provisions of section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Application allowed.