JUDGMENT : ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Code"), seeking setting aside of order dated 3.7.2012 passed by the learned CJM, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No. 1154 of 2012 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. The brief fact giving rise to this case is that the complainant was appointed as Mahanth of Koiladewa Math by order dated 5.1.2009 by the Administrator-cum-OSD of the Bihar State Religious Trust Board, the said appointment was challenged in a writ application vide CWJC No. 9493 of 2010 and in the light of the order passed by the High Court, the Religious Trust Board appointed Mukund Saran as temporary Mahanth of the Math, who took over the charge of the movable and immovable property of the Math. By order dated 9.8.2011 the Bihar State Religious Trust Board declared Koiladewa Math as a public Math. Thereafter, the complainant came to know regarding the sale deeds executed in respect of the math property by petitioner No. 2. Being property of the Math, execution of the sale deeds was illegal. Those sale deeds were executed between the year 1999 to 2000. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the complainant earlier himself claimed to be disciple of Bhagwati Saran, who had filed a title suit bearing T.S. No. 23 of 1988 for declaring him as the Mahanth of Koiladewa Math. The basis of His claim is the nomination letter of Hathua Raj and the case was being contested by petitioner No. 1 of this application, Mahanth Bishambhar Saran Deojee who also claimed himself as Mahanth of the Math. Both sides claimed that the Math is a public property. He further submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner No. 1 regarding execution of Sale deed. The sale deed has been executed by petitioner No. 2 in the year 1999 to 2000 to petitioner Nos. 3, 5 and 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands were sold to his father in the year 1972 by the then Mahanth and so he had executed the sale deeds and the Math was declared to be a public Math by the Bihar State Religious Trust Board in the year 2011. 3, 5 and 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands were sold to his father in the year 1972 by the then Mahanth and so he had executed the sale deeds and the Math was declared to be a public Math by the Bihar State Religious Trust Board in the year 2011. Learned Counsel further submits that no ingredient of making forged document as well as cheating to the complainant is made out in this case. 3. Contrary to that, learned Counsel appealing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 submits that forged sale deed has been executed by petitioner No. 2 in favour of other accused for the reason that the petitioner No. 2 has/had no right and title over the land in question. So illegally the property belonging to the Math has been sole by the petitioner No. 2. 4. Having considered the rival submissions of both sides and on perusal of the record the Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner No. 2 is that he executed sale deeds in the year 1999 to 2000 with respect to the lands belonging to Koiladewa Math in favour of petitioner Nos. 3, 5 and 7, wherein petitioner Nos. 6 and 8 were attesting witnesses. This is also evident that complaint case has not been filed by the purchaser rather by the complainant, claiming Mahanth of the Math at the relevant point of time. Cognizance has been taken in this case under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. Cheating has been defined in Section 415 of the IPC, which reads as follows:- "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 per son 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". Whereas Section 420 defines cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property which reads as follows:- "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived, to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 5. So in view of Section 420 of the IPC, a person must be deceived by fraudulent or dishonest inducement made by the accused so that the person so deceived deliver any property to him or allows him to retain any property and such act or omission causes or likely to cause damage or harm to such person in body, mind, reputation or such property. In the present case, there is no inducement to the complainant by the accused persons. If the property is of the Math and if the person who executes the sale deed having no right and title, then the purchaser is deceived by the fraudulent act as has paid consideration money to the person having no right and title, but in the present case the purchasers are the accused and they have not filed any complaint. As far as making of forged documents is concerned, Section 464 of IPC defines making of a false document. The said Section reads as follows:- 464. Making a false document- [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record- First-Who dishonestly or fraudulently- (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], 6. Section 467 of the IPC is with regard to forgery of valuable security and Section 468 of the IPC is forgery for the purpose of cheating. Section 464 defines making a false document in three conditions, first is that a person who fraudulently or dishonestly executes documents knowing that it has not been executed by the authority of a person by whose authority it was not made, signed or sealed or executed. Section 464 defines making a false document in three conditions, first is that a person who fraudulently or dishonestly executes documents knowing that it has not been executed by the authority of a person by whose authority it was not made, signed or sealed or executed. In the present case, petitioner No. 2 executed sale deed claiming himself having title and not impersonating anyone. This is also not the case that any alteration in a document after its execution has been made dishonestly or fraudulently. Thirdly it is also not the case that any person has executed the sale deed in-intoxication or in a state of unsoundness of mind or by deception practiced upon him, so that he could not know the contents of the document and the nature of alteration. Hence, in the present facts of the case no ingredient of such offence is being made out. So unless forgery is committed no offence is attracted under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC. 7. In the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2009)8 SCC 751 : 2009(4) PLJR (SC) 99 the Apex Court has held under similar circumstances that no ingredient of offence under Sections 420 and 467 IPC is made out. As there is absence of prima facie ingredients under which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate, so the cognizance order dated 3.7.2012 as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding of the petitioners are quashed. 7-A. In the result, the application stands allowed.