J. K. MATHUR, J. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. seeks to challenge the summoning order passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate, Bahraich in criminal Case No. 351 of 1984, summoning the petitioner for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 463/465/467/468, I. P. C. 2. A complaint was filed by the opposite party No. 3 alleging that a house in Bahraich belongs to Gokaran Prasad and others. The complainant had purchased 1/8th share of Gokaran Prasad for Rs. 3000/- and has obtained an agreement for the sale of remaining property in the name of his daughters and had taken possession over the entire house. There was a litigation between the parties in which the aforesaid vendors were found to be entitled to the house. It was alleged that the accused had written a false deed of gift and got it registered. 3. After recording the statement of Ram Lakhan Section 202, Cr. P. C, the imp-gned order was issued. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 5. Opposite Pary No. 3 did not appear inspite of the service of the notice upon him after the death of his Counsel. 6. The offences for which the process have been issued, relate to forgery. There is no allegation either in the complaint or averments in the statements that any document was executed by the petitioners which was purported to have been executed by any other person. There was a non-application of mind of the learned Magistrate in the present case inasmuch as he did not even care to see that under Section 463, I. P. C. no punishment is provided for the offence yet he summoned the petitioners to stand their trial for the offence under Section 463, I. P. C. also. 7. A forgery can be said to have been committed only when a false document is made. If a person prepares documents in his own name merely because be has no right to execute such document, would not render such a document forged one unless he signs his name in such a manner as the name of other person also who is believed to have executed the document. 8. In any case, by the averment made in the complaint, even if, they are taken to be true totally, no offence of forgery would be made out. 9. The petition is therefore, allowed. 8. In any case, by the averment made in the complaint, even if, they are taken to be true totally, no offence of forgery would be made out. 9. The petition is therefore, allowed. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on 11-5-84 is hereby set aside. 10. The petition is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed. .