JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. Kh. Chonjohn, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 as well as Mr. A. Golly, learned counsel appearing for the proforma respondents 2 and 3. 2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 11.07.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East in Cril. (C) Case No.134 of 2013 whereby and where under the Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 419/420/463/ 464/465/466/467/468/469/470/471 and 34 of the I.P.C against the present petitioners, Smt. Chongtham Ongbi Loidang Devi, Shri Chongtham Gandhi Singh as well as principal respondents 2,3 and 4, namely Shri Wangjam Priyokumar Singh, Shri Kshetrimayum Ibotombi Singh and Shri Th. Norenjit Singh. 3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case as has been made by the complainant in his complaint petition needs to be taken notice of. It is the case of the complainant that the land appertaining to CS Dag Nos.800 and 801 covered under Patta No.84/85(old) 760 (new) measuring an area of 24 and 205 acre respectively belonged to the complainant. In course of time land appertaining to C.S. Dag No.800 was sold to one R.K. Ongbi Nandini Devi as well as Wangjam Priyokumar Singh (proforma respondent No.2). Subsequently, the complainant also came to know that the land appertaining to C.S. Dag No.801 had been gifted to the accused no.1, the mother of the complainant, who subsequently sold it out to accused no.2, Shri Wangjam Priyokumar Singh vide sale deed dated 8.6.2009. On the basis of the said sale deed land was mutated in the name of transferee. The complainant also came to know that the gift deed has been shown to have been executed by the complainant but the complainant had never executed it in favour of her mother and thereby it is the case of impersonation. According to learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent the complainant does not have grievance with respect to transfer of land of C.S. Dag No.800 as sale deed executed with respect to that land has been cancelled. According to learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent the complainant does not have grievance with respect to transfer of land of C.S. Dag No.800 as sale deed executed with respect to that land has been cancelled. According to him grievance is with respect to transfer of the land covered under CS Dag No.801 as someone by impersonating the complainant has executed he deed of gift in favour of the petitioner No.1 (the mother of complainant) and the petitioner No.2 is the signatory of execution of said gift deed. 4. On filing the complaint it was registered as Cril (C) Case No.134 of 2013 wherein statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and one witness was also examined and thereupon the court took cognizance of the offences as aforesaid which is under challenge before this Court. Mr. Kh. Chonjohn, learned Sr.counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the dispute which has led to filing of complaint is out and out a civil dispute as the matter pertains to division of the land amongst the complainant on one hand and the mother as well as brother of the complainant on other hand and therefore the court should not have taken cognizance of the offences. Learned counsel by referring to the statements made in the revision application submits that in the month of November, 2011 when the petitioner (i.e. the mother of the complainant) was living with her sons, the principal respondent (complainant) at the instigation of his wife came out and started pressurizing his mother to go for apportionment of the land again left by Ch. Mikhu Singh of Brahmapur Bheigyabati Leikai, Imphal among his sons and daughters including the principal respondents. The mother did not agree for it and therefore the complainant in order to wreak vengeance has filed the criminal case though dispute is civil in nature and thereby the Court committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence as aforesaid. 5. Learned counsel in support of his submission that the criminal case should not be allowed to be prosecuted where dispute is civil in nature has referred to s decisions rendered in case of Rashmi Jain Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 553 and also a decision rendered in the case of Chandran Ratnaswami Vs K.C. Palanisamy & Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC 1952 . As against this, Mr. Kh. As against this, Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it never happens to be a case of civil dispute as allegation is there of gift deed being executed by impersonation and as such where allegation is there of an act of impersonation it will never assume the characteristic of civil dispute. 6. It was further submitted that right from beginning the case has been made out as that of impersonation which later on got confirmed when one of the accused who was signatory to the execution of gift deed filed his written statement in a suit brought by the complainant that the gift deed was executed by impersonating the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that even if the allegation discloses a civil dispute the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue which proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R. Kalyani vs Janak C. Mehta & Ors., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516 . Thus, he submits that since the allegation is there of gift deed being executed by a person impersonating the complainant, order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. Mr. A. Golly, learned counsel appearing for the proforma respondents 2 & 3 submits that proforma respondents 2 & 3 had been made as accused No.2 as the sale deed had been executed by the mother of the complainant, accused no.1, in favour of him whereas the accused no.3 the (proforma respondent no.3) had stood as witness to that execution of the sale deed and that there has been absolutely no allegation that the accused No.2 and 3 did any act in getting the gift deed executed by impersonating the complainant. Learned counsel in support of his case has referred to a decision rendered in case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein almost in similar fact it has been held that purchasers or the witnesses cannot be held guilty for the offence of forgery or cheating. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records I do find that it is the case of the complainant that the complainant claimed to be the owner of the land appertaining to CS Dag No.800 & 801. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records I do find that it is the case of the complainant that the complainant claimed to be the owner of the land appertaining to CS Dag No.800 & 801. The land under CS Dag No.800 was sold to accused No.2 and one other person by way of sale deed which sale deed subsequently was cancelled and thereby the complainant does not have any grievance with respect to transfer of the land appertaining to CS Dag No.800. However, so far as the land appertaining to CS Dag No.801 is concerned it has been alleged that some one by impersonating the complainant has executed a gift deed in favour of the mother of the complainant, accused no.1, who subsequently sold the land in favour of the accused no.2 by a sale deed in which the accused no.3 was a witness to the execution of sale deed. Thus, it appears that the complainant has made out a case of impersonation and as such even if allegation takes the shape of civil dispute prosecution cannot be allowed to be scuttled. At this stage I may refer to a decision taken in Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Another (supra) where at para-17 it has been observed as follows: “17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted.” 8. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted.” 8. Thus, it is evident that if a document is executed by a person claiming of his property though it does not belong to him such execution of deed would not fall within the definition forgery as defined under section 464 of IPC and thereby no offence is made out under section 467/471 but if one claims himself to be one though he is not that person and executes a sale deed then as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court he would be liable to be prosecuted for the offence of forgery and other related offences. Here in the instant case allegation is there against the petitioner, accused no.1 of getting a gift deed executed in her favour by an act of impersonation whereas the petitioner No.2 is the signatory of execution of gift deed. Therefore order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to raise the matter relating to the non attraction of other offence under which cognizance has been taken at the time of framing of charges or by filing a petition for discharge. So far as accused no.2 & 3, Wangjam Priyokumar Singh, Kshetrimayum Ibotombi Singh, are concerned they have never been alleged to have done any act of commission of offence of impersonation. Rather, the accused is said to have purchased the land from the mother of the complainant through a sale deed in which the accused no.3 is a witness. On such allegation the accused no.2 & 3 cannot be prosecuted for offence of forgery in view of the decision rendered in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Another (supra). It be stated that the accused no.2 & 3 have never approached to this court for quashing of the order taking cognizance. Rather they have been imp leaded as proforma respondents when revision application has been filed by one of the accused. Thus, the question does arise as to whether accused nos.2 & 3 are entitled to get relief? It be stated that the accused no.2 & 3 have never approached to this court for quashing of the order taking cognizance. Rather they have been imp leaded as proforma respondents when revision application has been filed by one of the accused. Thus, the question does arise as to whether accused nos.2 & 3 are entitled to get relief? In order to resolve this issue one may look to the provision to section 482 which reads as follows: “ Saving of inherent power of High Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” Here, in the instant case as has been noticed above the act of the accused Nos.2 and 3 never constitute offence of forgery in view of the decision rendered in case of Md. Ibrahim (supra) and thereby if they are allowed to be prosecuted it would be abuse of the process of court and therefore order taking cognizance is quashed so far as accused no.2 & 3, Wangjam Priyokumar Singh, Kshetrimayum Ibotombi Singh, are concerned. So far as petitioners namely, Smti. Chongtham Ongbi Loidang Devi and Shri Chongtham Gandhi Singh, are concerned, I do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Let LCR be transmitted immediately.