Judgment P. K. Sarin, J. 1. Today learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has appeared. He had not appeared yesterday. On his request he was granted opportunity to address the Court on behalf of opposite party No.2 in this case. He has also been heard. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 23-3-1995 passed by Judicial magistrate, Aurangabad, in Complaint case No.240 of 1994 by which the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 474 and 120-B of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as the code) and ordered for issuance of summons against the petitioners. 3. It appears that a complaint was filed by opposite party No.2 against the petitioners. Copy of the complaint is at annexure-1. In the complaint it has been alleged that the complainant along with his three brothers own and possess an area of 17-37 decimals of land of khata No.342 appertaining to a number of plots including the plots mentioned in Schedule-I of the complaint but the accused Nos.1 to 3 have executed two sale deeds for an area of 4.20 acres and 4.35 acres of land in favour of accused No.4 to 10 (petitioners No.4 to 10) without any authority, h was alleged that this Act of the accused persons was intentional in order to make out the claim over the lands of the petitioners, and, thus, by creating forged and false documents for the purpose of cheating may affect the title and possession of the complaint in future. It was further alleged that the sale-deeds contained false statement of fact and Smt. Dukhni devi has been mentioned as one of the vendors although she has not signed the documents. 4. The learned Magistrate, alter considering the statement of the complainant and three witnesses examined on his behalf, found a prima-facie case to be made out against the petitioners for the offences as already mentioned above and, accordingly, summoned the petitioners for trial by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, this application has been filed by the accused of the case. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that no offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 474 and 120-B of the Code is made out even if the entire complaint allegations are taken to be correct on its face value. Feeling aggrieved, this application has been filed by the accused of the case. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that no offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 474 and 120-B of the Code is made out even if the entire complaint allegations are taken to be correct on its face value. It has been contended that the petitioners Nos.4 to 10 are only vendees and they had not created any document and no offence can be said to have been committed by them. It is further contended that the petitioners No.1 to 3 also cannot be said to have committed any offence of forgery or preparation of any forged document as they had executed the document in their own name and have not executed it purporting to be in the name of other person. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has contended that the petitioners have committed the offence of forgery by creating a false document in respect of land over which the vendors (petitioners nos.1 to 3) had no title in them and this has been done in order to lay claim over the property in question. 7. Section 463 of the Code defines forgery. According to it, whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage to the public or to any person, or to support any claim of title, or to came 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 of the Code lays down as to what is meant by "making a false document" (as used in Sec.463)which reads as follows: "464. Making a false document - A person is said to make a false document -Hrst - who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs-seals or execution a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intent 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 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; 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 un-soundness 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. " 8. Unless it is covered by any clauses of Sec.464, it cannot be said that a forged document is made by a person. According to the complaint allegations the petitioners Nos.1 to 3, having no title to execute two sale deeds in favour of petitioners Nos.4 to 10, have executed two sale-deeds. We have to consider whether execution of sale deed by a person who has no title would amount to making a false document. Execution of such document by a person having no title cannot be said to fall within clause (1 ). Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 had not executed the document with the intention to cause it to be believed that such document or part of document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 have executed the document purporting to be executed by the complainant or his brothers or under their authority. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 have executed the document purporting to be executed by the complainant or his brothers or under their authority. Therefore, clause first of Sec.464 does not apply to the facts as stated in the complaint. 9. As regards clause second of section 464 of the Code, that also does not appear to be applicable as (here is no allegations that the petitioners No.1 to 3 have altered any document in any material, part. 10. Clause third of Sec.464 of the Code also does not cover the case of the complainant as there is no allegation that the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 have caused any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document knowing that such person does not know the contents of the documents on account of un-soundness of mind or intoxication or on account of any deception practice. Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 have not caused any person to sign the sale deed rather they themselves had executed the documents showing themselves to be the vendors and they have put in their own signatures. 11. In the circumstances the execution of sale deeds by petitioners Nos.1 to 3 cannot be said that they have made, false document within the meaning of section 464 of the Code. 12. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 474 and 120-B of the Code. For all these sections 467, 468 and 474 the forgery is the integral part of the offence. As already seen, the definition of forgery as given in Sec.463 read with Section 464 of the Code does not cover the case of the complainant to make out a case of forgery. Further, Sec.467 of the code is applicable in respect of forgery of a document which purports to be valuable security or a will. There is no forgery of a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will. It cannot be said that the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 have forged a document purporting to be a valuable security or a will. Section 468 deals with punishment of forgery for the purpose of cheating. There is no forgery of a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will. It cannot be said that the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 have forged a document purporting to be a valuable security or a will. Section 468 deals with punishment of forgery for the purpose of cheating. As already discussed above, the ingredient of forgery is not satisfied in the present case, as execution of sale-deeds by petitioners Nos.1 to 3 cannot be said to be making a false document as contemplated by Sec.464 of the Code. Sec.474 of the Code lays down that whoever has in his possession any document, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment as given in Sec.474. As discussed above, the document of sale deed cannot be said to be forged document. Therefore, its possession by petitioners No.4 to 10 cannot be said to be possession of a forged document with intention to use the same as genuine. Sec.120-B is connected with the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 474 because it is in respect of these offences that the conspiracy is said to have been entered into. 13. The complaint case, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct, in my opinion does not make out a case punishable under Sections 467, 468,474 read with Sec.120-B of the Code. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has erred in coming to the conclusion thai a prima-facie case is made out for trial for the said offences. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and is quashed accordingly. The application is allowed accordingly. Applicaion Allowed