JUDGMENT 1. - In the above cases, two complaints were lodged by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur for the offence under Section 203 (1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act against the petitioner Sister Aruna and Sister Mobel. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class No.19 Jaipur City, Jaipur vide its order dated 29.05.2000 took cognizance in both the cases and summoned both the accused i.e. present petitioner and sister Mobel through bailable warrants in a sum of Rs.2500/-. 3. At the time of execution of the bailable warrants, the petitioner Sister Aruna put her signature on the personal bond of Sister Mobel, in both the cases. 4. The trial Court vide its order dated 21.07.2000 taking it to be an impersonation of Sister Mobel, issued a show notice to the petitioner why the proceedings under Sections 419, 463, 465 and 466 of the I.P.C. be not initiated against the her. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the notice so issued, this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner. 6. Since, there are two cases on which cognizance has been taken, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order, as the point involved is one in the same. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as record of the case and also perused the bailable warrants, issued in both the cases by the trial Court. 8. False personation has been defined in Section 205 of the I.P.C., wherein it has been mentioned that whoever falsely personates another person and in such assumed character, if gives bail or security, the order genuine or death in criminal prosecution, he will punish for the offence. 9. In the instant case, the bailable warrants issued have been received by Sister Aruna, who has put her own signature on the personal bond of Sister Mobel for Sister Mobel and while doing so she has put her signature by putting the word 'for', meaning thereby she has not impersonated Sister Mobel, but on behalf of Sister Mobel, she has put her signature on the personal bond. It was not her intention to impersonate Sister Mobel at that time. Had there been her intention to impersonate Sister Mobel, she could have put signature as Sister Mobel, but she did not do that and instead of she put her signature on behalf of Sister Mobel. It was not her intention to impersonate Sister Mobel at that time. Had there been her intention to impersonate Sister Mobel, she could have put signature as Sister Mobel, but she did not do that and instead of she put her signature on behalf of Sister Mobel. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that Sister Aruna has impersonated Sister Mobel and the trial Court wrongly treated that Sister Aruna impersonated Sister Mobel. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case of impersonation is made out. The trial Court wrongly took cognizance in both the cases against the petitioner and the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustainable. 11. Consequently, both the miscellaneous petitions are allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class No.19, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal case No.1359/2000 (Municipal Corporation v. Sister Aruna & Others) as well as criminal case No.1360/2000 (Municipal Corporation v. Sister Aruna & Others) are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******