Judgment P. K. Sarin, J. 1. This application under Sec.482 of the Code of criminal Procedure has been moved for quashing the order dated 14.7.1995 passed by Judicial Magistrate in Trial no.1317 of 1995 by which the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal code against the petitioners. 2. It appears that a complaint was filed by opposite party No.2 against the petitioners alleging that the petitioner no.1 was appointed Tabulator for the intermediate Examination of 1989 and petitioner No.2 is his brother. It is alleged that the petitioner No.1, in collusion with petitioner No.2, made fraudulent entries in the mark sheets by increasing the marks on taking money and thereby have committed the offences of forgery. It was also alleged that on the application of opposite party No.2 on 13.8.1994 the Principal of the College made inquiry and submitted his report to the Vice-Chancellor which supports the allegation of forgery against the petitioners. 3. The Learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant and considering the statements of five witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant and also considering the photostat copy of mark sheet and the copy of Intermediate examination, 1989, found that there were sufficient materials for summoning the accused persons for a case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. This order is dated 14.7.1995 which is sought to be quashed by the petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that from the allegations made in the complaint no offence is made out against the petitioners as such the learned magistrate erred in summoning the petitioners. 5. Perusal of the complaint would show that the only allegation made against the petitioners is that they have committed forgery by increasing the marks in the mark sheet after taking money. 6. Section 420 of the Indian Penal code provides punishment to a person who cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. In the present case there are no allegations that the petitioners have cheated any person and thereby dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property. In the present case there are no allegations that the petitioners have cheated any person and thereby dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property. The complaint does not disclose any of the ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Section 415 of the Indian Penal code defines cheating which runs as follows: "415. Cheating.-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. " 8. It is evident by the said provision that there must be deception or fraudulent or dishonest inducement to the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or intentional inducement to the person deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived. In the present case there is no allegation that the examinees who were issued mark sheets, were deceived and that they were fraudulently or dishonestly induced, to deliver any property or omit to do anything. Thus, the ingredients of cheating, as envisaged under section 415 of the Indian Penal code are also lacking in the complaint petition. Therefore, order of the learned magistrate that, prima facie, a case under Sec.420 of the Indian Penal code is made out does not appear to be sustainable in law. 9. Section 467 of the Indian Penal code deals with the punishment for forgery of valuable security, will, etc. It runs as follows: "467. Therefore, order of the learned magistrate that, prima facie, a case under Sec.420 of the Indian Penal code is made out does not appear to be sustainable in law. 9. Section 467 of the Indian Penal code deals with the punishment for forgery of valuable security, will, etc. It runs as follows: "467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.-Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security, or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest, or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. " 10. The provisions of Sec.467 would apply where there is forgery in respect of a document which is a valuable security or a will or an authority to adopt the son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest, or dividends thereon. The allegations in the complaint do not make out any case for an offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Issuance, of a mark sheet cannot be said to relate to a valuable security or any transaction relating to the valuable security. Learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 also conceded that the offence under Sec.467 is not made out. However, he has contended that the offence under Sec.466 or under section 465 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out. 11. Section 468 of the Indian Penal code runs as follows: "468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.-Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. " Sec.466 of the Indian Penal code runs as follows: "466. Forgery for purpose of cheating.-Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. " Sec.466 of the Indian Penal code runs as follows: "466. Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.-Whoever forges a document, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, of a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend certificate or document, suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power-of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. " 12. It is stated that for the purpose of Sec.466 there must be allegations that document purporting to be record or proceeding of a court or a register of birth etc. or register kept by a public servant or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity is forged. On the allegations made in the complaint petition it does not appear that the petitioners have forged a document which purports to be a register kept by a public servant or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity. Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code defines forgery. It lays down that whoever make any false document or part of the 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 implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Sec.464 lays down as to when a person is said to make a false document it tuns as follows: "464. Sec.464 lays down as to when a person is said to make a false document it tuns as follows: "464. Making a false document.-A person is said to make a false document-First-Who 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 or 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 secondly-Who, without lawful authority dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or thirdly-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. " 13. The learned Counsel of the petitioners has contended that in the tabulation sheet marks were entered by the petitioner No.1. It is contended that some of the candidates who got lesser marks were shown to have got higher marks and this is indicative of the fact that the marks have been increased in the tabulation sheet and the mark sheet has been issued on the basis of such a tabulation sheet. The complaint petition does not contain any allegation in respect of any forgery in the tabulation sheet. Entire allegations were related to the issuance of mark sheet showing higher marks. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party 2 does not find support from the allegations made in the complaint petition. Further, if in the tabulation register the marks have been wrongly noted or higher marks have been shown against the names of some candidate that by itself will not be a proof of forgery. There must be the ingredients of dishonestly or fraudulently making alteration in the entries of the tabulation register. Further, if in the tabulation register the marks have been wrongly noted or higher marks have been shown against the names of some candidate that by itself will not be a proof of forgery. There must be the ingredients of dishonestly or fraudulently making alteration in the entries of the tabulation register. Therefore, offence of forgery, as envisaged by sections 465 or 466 of the Indian Penal Code did not appear to be made out from the allegations made in the complaint. Learned magistrate has also taken the cognizance for the offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code which lays down that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows and has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. In the complaint there is no allegation that the petitioners have used any forged document as genuine document. The only allegation is that the petitioners have increased the marks and have issued mark sheet of increased marks. It does not make out the case of user of a forged document as genuine by the petitioners. 14. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has placed reliance on the case of Babu Sahib Kalu Patil V/s. State of Maharashtra (1980 Criminal law Journal 1312) wherein the Apex court has not discussed the facts in detail and has only observed that the two certificates, which the appellants have been found to have forged to get admission in the Arts and Commerce college, would not be described as valuable security and the Apex Court altered the conviction under Sec.467 read with Sec.471 to Sec.465 read with Sec.471 of the Indian penal Code. On the basis of this decision, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 is that although the forged mark sheets cannot be described as valuable security but such forgery would be covered by section 465 read with Sec.471 of the indian Penal Code. This decision does not help the learned Counsel for opposite party No.2 inasmuch as the accused of the said case had used as genuine forged document to get admission in a College. There is no allegation that the petitioners have used as genuine any forged document. This decision does not help the learned Counsel for opposite party No.2 inasmuch as the accused of the said case had used as genuine forged document to get admission in a College. There is no allegation that the petitioners have used as genuine any forged document. Therefore, in the facts of the present case the offences under Sec.465 read with section 471 of the Indian Penal Code does not appear to be made out. 15. The learned Counsel for opposite party No.2 has also cited the case of Local Government V/s. Ganga Ram (1922 Vol.23 Cri. L. J. R.443) wherein it has been held that a certificate of passing an examination is property within the meaning of Sec.415 of the indian Penal Code. In that case a person represented himself to be another and obtained from an Inspector of Schools a certificate of having passed certain examination when, in fact, he had not passed that examination. On these facts it was held that such a person has committed the offence of cheating and in that connection it has been held that certificate of passing examination was also property. This case also does not help the learned Counsel for opposite party No.2 as in that case there was inducement of delivery of certificate of passing examination by playing a fraud or deceit on the Inspector of Schools who issued the same. In the present case, there are no allegations that any person had delivered any property by act of cheating of the present petitioners. Instead the allegations are that the petitioners have delivered mark sheets to the examinees. There is no case that the petitioners have cheated the examinees whom the mark sheets were issued. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 next relied on the decision in the case of Manmohan singh Johal V/s. State (A. I. R.1969 P and H 225), wherein it has been held that if a person deliberately prepares embarkation forms in contravention of statutory requirements merely by copying out false entries from the forged passports, then he would be making a false document as defined in section 464 of the indian Penal Code. The principles laid down in the said case do not have any application in the facts of present case, as already discussed above. The principles laid down in the said case do not have any application in the facts of present case, as already discussed above. There is no allegation in the complaint that the mark sheets have been issued on the basis of forged entries in any other document. The contention of the learned Counsel for opposite party No.2 is that the tabulation sheet was wrongly prepared showing higher marks against the names of some candidates. Such act itself would not make out a case of forgery or making a false document as contemplated by Sec.464 of the Indian Penal Code. Even if the contention of learned counsel for opposite party No.2 be accepted for arguments sake that offences under Sections 417, 465 and 471 is made out even then the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance for such offences as the cognizance stood barred by limitation as prescribed by section 468 of the Code of criminal Procedure. Offence is said to have been committed in the year 1989 while the complaint was filed in the year 1994. The punishment provided by section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is one years imprisonment or fine or with both while punishment provided for the offence under Sec.465 read with section 471 is up two years imprisonment or fine or with both while punishment provided for the offence under section 465 read with Sec.471 is up two years imprisonment or fine or both section 468 of the Code of Criminal procedure prescribe the period limitation of three years for taking cognizance if the offence is punishable with an imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Therefore, in any case the cognizance could not have been taken after the expiry of the period of three years for the offences punishable under Sec.465 read with Sec.471 of the Indian penal Code and after the expiry of one year for the offence punishable under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Of course there is provision for extension of period of limitation. Under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal procedure but it does not appear that the learned Magistrate ever considered condonation of delay or ever granted extension of the limitation period in accordance with section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. Of course there is provision for extension of period of limitation. Under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal procedure but it does not appear that the learned Magistrate ever considered condonation of delay or ever granted extension of the limitation period in accordance with section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. In the circumstances, the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate, do not appear to be made out. Even if the offences under sections 417,465 and 471 be taken to be made put the cognizance is barred by limitation in view of Sec.468 of the code of Criminal Procedure as the cognizance had been taken much beyond the period of limitation prescribed. The learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sec.468 of the Indian Penal code which deals with the offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating. The facts of the present case do not make out any case of forgery for the purpose of cheating. 17. This appears to be a fit case in which the powers under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be exercised as taking of cognizance against the petitioners by the impugned order and the proceeding on the basis of such cognizance order amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 18. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.7.1995 passed by Judicial Magistrate, motihari, in trial No.1317 of 1995 and further proceedings on its basis are hereby quashed. Application Allowed.