JUDGMENT : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Ms T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS , 2023, for quashing the order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Aalo in Criminal Revision No.04/2023 in DRJ G.R. Case No.24/2022, in NCH. P.S. Case No. 01/2022 under Section 420 /463/471/34 IPC. 3. This application has been filed jointly by the Petitioner No.1, Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 3 having a common cause and assailing the common Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the learned court of District and Sessions Judge, Siang, East Siang, Upper Siang, Lower Siang Districts at Pasighat (Arunachal Pradesh), In Charge District & Sessions Court, Aalo. 4. This application has been filed jointly by the Petitioner No.1, Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 3 having a common cause and assailing the common Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the learned court of District and Sessions Judge, Siang, East Siang, Upper Siang, Lower Siang Districts at Pasighat (Arunachal Pradesh), In Charge District & Sessions Court, Aalo. 4. The facts of the case are inter alia, that the Petitioners are all permanent residents of Limeking Circle in Upper Subansiri District; that the Petitioners own an area locally known as “Gelemo” in the aforesaid Circle; that when the aforesaid area was identified for use by the Defence Authorities of India, a land dispute arose between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 with regard to the ownership of the aforesaid land for claiming the land compensation from the defence authorities; that on 21.02.2018, the Petitioners filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District against the Respondent No. 2, disputing the title and ownership of the aforesaid land; that upon receipt of such complaint, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the matter to the Circle Officer, Limeking and as per the direction of the Circle Officer, a Keba was held at Orak Village on 27.01.2022 and 28.01.2022 to settle the dispute; that during the Keba, it was suggested and advised by the Gaon Burahs to the Respondent No.2 that the land compensation against the 15 acres out of 19 acres to be received from the Indian Army/Defence may be shared to Singming family i.e. the Petitioners, in order to maintain a good relationship; that it was further advised by the Gaon Burahs that rest of the land compensation amount should be given to the Tai Mra’s family i.e. the Respondent No. 1’s family; that the Petitioners did not agree to the suggestion as the Petitioners were claiming the whole of the Gelemo area as their property. Due to such disagreement, the dispute could not be settled in the aforesaid Keba. 5. That no settlement happened during the Keba and no order was passed by the Keba. Due to such disagreement, the dispute could not be settled in the aforesaid Keba. 5. That no settlement happened during the Keba and no order was passed by the Keba. However, a report signed by Shri Tapor Baki, the Political Interpreter (PI), Limeking, was prepared later; that though no order was passed by the aforesaid Keba, the Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Basar, being BSR Civil Appeal No.01/2022, praying for setting aside of the aforesaid Keba report held on 27.01.2022 and 28.01.2022; that on receipt of the notice from the aforesaid Court, the Petitioners filed an Interlocutory Application No.01/2022 in BSR Civil Appeal No.01/2022 on the ground that no settlement happened in the Keba and the report furnished by the PI is not valid as the same was never shared with them; further that PI is not the authority to settle the dispute; and therefore, the Petitioners prayed for dismissal of the appeal; 6. That the with their aforesaid IA, the Petitioners submitted a document, namely, ‘LOCAL KEBANG DISCUSSION/STATEMENT’ (herein after referred to as “the Document”) signed by 5(five) Gaon Burahs, who were present during the Keba held on 27.01.2022 and 28.01.2022, wherein it was mentioned that after 2(two) days of local kebang discussion, Shri Tai Mra offered 15 Acres of land to Singming family, but Singming people totally refused the said land offered by Shri Tai Mra, as the Singming people claims 100% Gelemo area as their own land. It was further mentioned in the Document that the local Kebang (Keba) was not finalised/settled under the chairmanship of Shri Tapor Baki, P.I. Circle office, Limeking; 7. It was further mentioned in the Document that the local Kebang (Keba) was not finalised/settled under the chairmanship of Shri Tapor Baki, P.I. Circle office, Limeking; 7. That the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Basar, disposed off the Civil Appeal on 06.05.2022, on a prayer made on behalf of the Respondent No.2 for withdrawal of the same with a liberty to file a fresh suit before the appropriate Civil Court; that while disposing off the aforesaid Civil Appeal, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge observed that as the aforesaid Document revealed no settlement during the Keba, the Appeal was premature; that after the withdrawal of the aforesaid Civil Appeal, the Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint dated 09.05.2022 before the Nacho Police Station against the Petitioners for forging and cheating, claiming that the Document submitted by the Petitioners in the IA before the learned Additional District Judge, Basar, was false and fabricated, more so regarding the statement that the Respondent No.2 offered 15 acres of land to the Petitioners; that pursuant to such complaint, a case was registered against the Petitioners being Nacho P.S Case No. 01/2022 under Section 420 /468/471/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE ; that pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the Nacho police, after investigation, filed a Charge Sheet bearing No.01/2022 on 08.09.2022 against the Petitioners to be tried under Section 420 /468/472/34 IPC; that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Daporijo in G.R. Case No.24/2022, took up the matter for consideration of the charges. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo after due consideration of the charges framed against the Petitioners, discharged the Petitioners, vide the order dated 02.12.2022, with the finding that the charges framed against the Petitioners were groundless; that being aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2022, the Respondent No.2 preferred a Criminal Revision Petition, registered as Criminal Revision No.04/2023 before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pasighat, In-charge District & Session Judge, Aalo; that after hearing the parties, the learned District & Sessions Judge at Aalo, vide it’s order dated 09.08.2024, allowed the aforesaid Revision Petition of the Respondent No.2 with a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo to frame charges against the Petitioners; that being not satisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024, the Petitioners have filed the instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C ( Section 528 of BNSS , 2023) to set aside and quash the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo. 8. Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, has committed a grave error in facts as well as in law, in directing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, to frame charges against the Petitioners under the aforesaid sections. He submitted that no materials in the Charge-sheet necessitated the framing of the charges under Sections 420 /468/471/34 of the IPC. He submitted that the Document was prepared by the Petitioners on which the Gaon Buras of the Keba held on 27-28/02/2022 at Orak village, put their thumb impressions, was, in fact, produced before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Basar, only for the purpose to bring the attention of the Court that there was no settlement in the aforesaid Keba, as there was no order passed by the Keba and hence, no appeal would lie. 9. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that it is apparent from the Charge Sheet that the Gaon Buras had admittedly put their thumb impressions on the aforesaid Document made by the Petitioners. It was further submitted that the FSL report of the thumb impressions, confirmed that the Gaon Buras had put their thumb impressions on the aforesaid document themselves on being explained to them about the contents of the Document. It was further submitted that the FSL report of the thumb impressions, confirmed that the Gaon Buras had put their thumb impressions on the aforesaid document themselves on being explained to them about the contents of the Document. Therefore, he submitted that Section 468 as well as Section 471 of the IPC is not attracted to the alleged offence. 10. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that there was no ground for charging the Petitioners under Section 420 of the IPC, as the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are totally missing in the instant case. He submitted that it is apparent from the Document that it was specifically mentioned in the bottom of the Document that no settlement had been arrived at during the Keba held on 27-28/02/2022. He submitted that there was no inducement on the part of the Petitioners for delivery of any property or thereby gaining some wrong gains or any valuable security by means of cheating or dishonest inducement on the part of the Petitioners. Therefore, he submitted that the framing of charge under Section 420 of the IPC is wholly incorrect on the part of the Investigating Agency and therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, had rightfully discharged the Petitioners from the aforesaid charges. 11. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that it is a fact that the Gaon Buras, in the aforesaid Keba, suggested that land compensation against 15 acres out of 19 acres of the land that was to be received from the Indian Army/Defence Authority, may be given to the Singming family (i.e. the Petitioners) and the rest of the land compensation to be given to the Respondent no. 2’s family. However, there was no agreement as such on the aforesaid suggestion and the same was rejected by the Petitioners, as they claimed the whole portion of the land to be their land. He submitted that the Petitioners by including the statement “Shri Tai Mra offered 15 acres of land to Singming family/people but, Singming people totally refused the said land offered by Shri Tai Mra, Singming people claimed 100% of the Gellemo/Gelemo area as its own land” though committed a mistake, but there was no intention to cheat the Respondent no. 2 or anyone else. 2 or anyone else. Therefore, he submitted that there is no criminal ingredient in the aforesaid action of the Petitioners to be charged under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC. 12. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, committed a grave error by relying on the judgments of State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M.R. Hiremath , (2019) 7 SCC 515 and State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Suresh Rajan , (2014) 11 SCC 709 to come to a finding that probative value of the evidence cannot be gone into at the time of framing charges. In this connection, he submitted that the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, did not consider the factual matters in right perspective as the intention for creation of the Document was not to cheat any one. He submitted that the aforesaid Document was submitted only to show before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge that, in fact, no settlement was arrived at the Keba held on 27-28/02/2022 and therefore, since there was no effective order passed in the Keba, the appeal against the report of the Keba before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Basar could not be sustained. 13. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that though the aforesaid document was submitted by the Petitioners before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Basar, no complaint for submission of false evidence/misrepresentation and/or suppression of material facts was made by the Respondent no. 2. Further, he submitted, it was not even taken up by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Basar as submission of false evidence, as the learned Judge, Basar neither raised the issue nor any enquiry was conducted under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., for an offence alleged to have been committed under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. 14. In aforesaid view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that apparently, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, was also of the opinion that prima facie no offence and/or misrepresentation or any cheating was committed by the Petitioners by submitting the aforesaid Document before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Basar for perjury. 15. In aforesaid view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that apparently, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, was also of the opinion that prima facie no offence and/or misrepresentation or any cheating was committed by the Petitioners by submitting the aforesaid Document before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Basar for perjury. 15. To buttress his argument, the learned counsel for the Petitioners cited the case of M/s Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana & another, (2001) 1 SCC 278 , wherein he relied on paragraph nos. 6 & 7. He submitted that while under Section 195 Cr.P.C., it is open for the Court before which the offence was committed to prefer a complaint for the prosecution of the offender; Section 34 0 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure as to how that complaint may be preferred. He submitted that in the present case, nothing as such was done by the Court. Therefore, he submitted that the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, has committed a palpable error in relying on the probative evidence of the aforesaid Document in charging the Petitioners under Sections 420 /468/471/34 of the IPC. 16. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, whereby a direction had been passed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, to frame charges against the Petitioners under Sections 420 /468/471/34 of the IPC, is liable to be set aside and quashed. 17. Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State, the Respondent no. 1 submitted that she concede to the arguments and submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. She submitted that the Sections, under which the charges were framed against the Petitioners, are not attracted to the facts of the instant case. She submitted that apparently, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, has committed an error in charging the Petitioners under Sections 420 /468/471/34 of the IPC, as from the materials brought on record do not reveal commission of any such offences. She submitted that the findings of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, in paragraph nos. 10 & 11 that the learned CJM, Daporijo, has committed error in not taking the statements of all the Gaon Buras into consideration while deciding the case, is not correct. She submitted that the findings of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, in paragraph nos. 10 & 11 that the learned CJM, Daporijo, has committed error in not taking the statements of all the Gaon Buras into consideration while deciding the case, is not correct. She submitted that a bare perusal of the statements of the Gaon Buras, makes it clear that they themselves had put their thumb impressions in the aforesaid Document, and the fact that no settlement was arrived at in the aforesaid Keba, was explained to the Gaon Buras by the Petitioners. She further submitted that the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, committed another error by coming to the finding that the FSL report of putting their thumb impressions in the Document by the Gaon Buras was not a relevant factor for deciding the issue in hand. 18. In view of the aforesaid position, the learned Addl. P.P. submitted that she is in agreement with the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. 19. On the other hand, Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent no. 2 submitted that there was no wrong in the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo. He submitted that the learned CJM, Daporijo, without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also not properly looking into the sections under the Charge-sheet against which the Petitioners were charged, discharged the Petitioners of the charges levelled against them. He submitted that the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, after considering all the factors had rightfully directed the learned CJM, Daporijo, to frame the charges as mentioned in the Charge-sheet against the Petitioners. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2 submitted that by submitting the Document created by the Petitioners before the Addl. District Judge, Basar, the Petitioners has committed the offence of misrepresenting the Court by way of filing false evidence. He submitted that the Document so procured by obtaining thumb impressions of the Gaon Buras, without explaining the contents of the Document, was a fraud and cheating committed against the Gaon Buras by the Petitioners. He submitted that it was never a fact that the Respondent no. 2 ever offered 15 acres of land to the families of the Petitioners. He submitted that the Document so procured by obtaining thumb impressions of the Gaon Buras, without explaining the contents of the Document, was a fraud and cheating committed against the Gaon Buras by the Petitioners. He submitted that it was never a fact that the Respondent no. 2 ever offered 15 acres of land to the families of the Petitioners. Therefore, by documenting such a statement falsely, the Petitioners tried to create some future security for them. By doing so, he submitted that the Petitioners had not only committed offence under the aforesaid sections, but also undermined the authority of the village Keba, which is a respectful Government recognized village authority under the customary laws. He submitted that there was an intention to create false evidence before the Court and therefore, the Document was created by the Petitioners so that they can avail a favorable order from the Court. He submitted that the appeal namely, BSR Civil Appeal No. 01/2022 filed by the Respondent No. 2 before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Basar, was withdrawn by the Respondent no. 2 after learning that the Petitioners had filed a fabricated and false document. He submitted that the Respondent no. 2 withdrew the aforesaid Civil Appeal due to the fact that the Respondent no. 2 wanted to file a complaint against the Petitioners for creating such a forged document. 21. The learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2 further submitted that all the ingredients to be fulfilled in offences under Sections 420 /468/471/34 of the IPC, are present in the instant case and therefore, rightfully, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo has directed the learned Court of CJM, Daporijo, to frame charges against the Petitioners under the aforesaid sections. He further submitted that the case is only at the charge level and after framing of the charges, the Petitioners will get their opportunities to revert the charges against them. Therefore, they are, in fact, not to be prejudiced or aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo. 22. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2 prayed that this Court may not interfere in the matter and the instant petition, filed under section 528 of the BNSS , 2023 may be dismissed. 23. 22. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2 prayed that this Court may not interfere in the matter and the instant petition, filed under section 528 of the BNSS , 2023 may be dismissed. 23. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 24. Before delving into the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it may be relevant, at this stage, to reproduce the relevant sections of the INDIAN PENAL CODE herein below:- “ 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property .-- 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. 463. Forgery .-Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, 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. 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating. -Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged) shall be used for the 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. 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record .-Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.” 25. 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record .-Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.” 25. As far as the Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, the Section is very clear that to commit an offence under Section 420 , the most relevant factor is that one has to dishonestly induce another person to be deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or in part of valuable security or anything which is signed or seal, and which is capable of converted to a valuable security. In order to attract the provision of Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, it is the prosecution who has to prove not only the act of cheating but it also needs to prove that the act of cheating resulted into an inducement to deliver the property resulting in a loss or destruction of property to the person who has been induced to deliver such property. 26. At this point, it may be worthwhile to consider the Case decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Mohammed Ibrahim & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another , (2009)8 SCC 751 . The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the offence under Section 420 IPC has observed as follows in the paragraphs below: “18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 19. 19. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived, (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).” 27. Taking into consideration of the aforesaid , if the facts involved in the instant case are taken into account, the Document created by the Petitioners does not really reveal that any one is deceived to deliver any property to any other person. It neither reveals any commission of any dishonest inducement whereby, the person is deceived to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security or anything signed or seal, and which is capable of converted into a valuable security. In the instant case, there was no dishonest inducement on the part of the Petitioners to deliver any property or valuable security to them. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that charging the Petitioners under Section 420 of INDIAN PENAL CODE under the Charge-sheet so filed by the Investigating Authority is not correct. 28. As far as the Section 468 of the IPC is concerned, which provides for punishment for forgery for purpose of cheating, it will also be relevant to look into the Section 463 of the IPC, which defines forgery. As per the principle of law, the basic element for forgery is creation of a false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record. And creating of such document should be with such intention to cause damage or injury to 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 an intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. Therefore, one of the primary ingredients in commission of forgery is firstly, making of a false document with intention to cause damage or injury; and secondly, thereby to cause any person to part with property or to enter into express or implied contract with an intent to commit fraud. Therefore, one of the primary ingredients in commission of forgery is firstly, making of a false document with intention to cause damage or injury; and secondly, thereby to cause any person to part with property or to enter into express or implied contract with an intent to commit fraud. However, from the facts of the present case, it is seen that the aforesaid Document which was created and submitted before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Basar, was, in fact, for substantiating the Petitioners’ stand that no such settlement had arrived at the Keba held on 27.01.2022 to 28.01.2022 rather than cheating the Respondent No.2. 29. A bare perusal of the interlocutory application that has been filed by the Petitioners before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Basar, it is clear that the primary stand of the Petitioners was that no cause of action arose to file the appeal i.e. BSR Civil Appeal No.01/2022 by the Respondent No.2 because neither the order was passed by the Keba nor any settlement was arrived at during the Keba. However, it is a fact that the Document was created by the Petitioners by procuring the thumb impressions of the Gaon Burahs of the aforesaid Keba wherein the alleged statement had been included which is the bone of the contention in the present dispute. However, on perusal of the report of the Keba submitted by the P.I., it reveals that, in fact, there was a suggestion by the Keba which is reproduced herein below:- “1. The land compensation against the 15 acres out of 19 acres to be received from the Indian Army/Defence may be shared to Singming family in order to maintain their relationships. 2. The whole land of Gelemo with rest of the land compensation amounts should be under the right and possession of Tai Mra’s family.” 30. It is seen that the aforesaid suggestions which were not disputed by the parties, show that there was, in fact, a discussion happened about the land compensation to be given to the Petitioners’ family though, the suggestions were rejected by the parties. It is seen that the aforesaid suggestions which were not disputed by the parties, show that there was, in fact, a discussion happened about the land compensation to be given to the Petitioners’ family though, the suggestions were rejected by the parties. Therefore, it is apparent that no settlement was arrived at during the Keba and therefore, no order or direction was issued by the Keba, which could give rise to any cause of action to either of the parties to file an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar. Further, it is the stand of the Petitioners before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar that the Document so created by them was only to clarify their stand that there was no settlement or there was no order issued by the Keba. The Document further clearly shows that there was a clear statement that the Keba was not finalised and settled. It may be worthwhile to reproduce herein below the statement contained in the aforesaid document:- “The local Kebang was not finalised/settled. In the end and all Kebang functionaries under the Chairmanship of Shri Tapar Baki, PI Circle office Limeking.” 31. It may be relevant at this stage to consider the case decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, i.e. Mir Nagvi Askari Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2009) 15 SCC 643 . The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below: “ 161 . Section 471 which deals with using as genuine a forged document has been reproduced below: "471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record." 163. These three offences deal with substantially what is known as forgery, defined in Section 463 or making of a false document which is provided under Section 464. It is reproduced herein below: "464. These three offences deal with substantially what is known as forgery, defined in Section 463 or making of a false document which is provided under Section 464. It is reproduced herein below: "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 digital signature on any electronic record; (d) Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature 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 or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record 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 electronic record or the nature of the alterations” 164. A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said section. The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else. The second criteria of the section deals with a case where a person without lawful authority alters a document after it has been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of the voucher in question after they have been made. Therefore, in our opinion the second criteria of the said section is also not applicable to the present case. The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e. because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind etc. Such is also not the case before us. Indisputably therefore the accused before us could not have been convicted with the making of a false document. 166. Further, the offence of forgery deals with making of a false document with the specific intentions enumerated therein. The said section has been reproduced below. "463. Forgery.--Whoever makes any false documents or electronic record part of a document or electronic record 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." 32. In another case, namely, Ram Narayan Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , ( 2003) 3 SCC 641, while dealing with forgery, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows in the paragraphs reproduced herein below:- “ 371. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. 371. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. 371. The expression “intent to defraud” implies conduct coupled with an intention to deceive or thereby to cause injury. In other words, defraud involves two conceptions, namely, the deceit and injury to the person deceived, that is infringement of some legal right possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of property. The term “forgery” as used in the statute is used in its ordinary and popular acceptation. 373. The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention. The question are (i) is that document false, (ii) is it made by the accused, and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If at all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty.” 33. A cumulative perusal of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with Section 463 and 471 of the IPC, it is discernible that to bring an offence under Section 463 and 471 IPC, the element of the intention to defraud certainly needs to be present. In the present case in hand, from the materials before this Court, it could be clearly seen that though there was a statement which was included in the Document which is factually not correct, the Document actually shows that the dispute was not resolved and no final settlement was arrived at during the Keba. This being the position, it certainly cannot be said that there was an intention of the Petitioners to actually defraud or cheat the Respondent No.2. The element of intent to defraud is certainly missing in the alleged offence by the petitioners. 34. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the stand of the Petitioners that they did not have any intention to cheat any one by committing a forgery or creating a forged document cannot be brushed aside. The element of intent to defraud is certainly missing in the alleged offence by the petitioners. 34. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the stand of the Petitioners that they did not have any intention to cheat any one by committing a forgery or creating a forged document cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that if all the available materials and factual details are taken into account, a charge under Section 468 and 471 of the IPC may not be sustained in law against the Petitioners. 35. This is also due to the fact that it is undisputed that the thumb impressions in the Document submitted by the Petitioners are genuine thumb impressions of the Gaon Burahs as had been confirmed by the FSL report. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot be said to have committed an offence of forgery of the thumb impressions. However, it is discernible that there was an element of error on the part of the Petitioners in not explaining the whole contents of the Document to the Gaon Burahs. However, it is confirmed from the cumulative reading of the statements recorded by the police of the Gaon Burahs that, in fact, the statement about non settlement of the dispute was explained to the Gaon Burahs. Therefore, this is the opinion of this Court that for the mere mistake of not mentioning about the statement which was not, in fact, correct shall not make the Petitioners liable for committing offence under Section 468 and 471 of IPC, when, it is discernible from the records that creation and submission of the document was primarily to defend their stand of maintainability of the appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar. 36. As far as the argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the Petitioners regarding the Section 195 of Cr.P.C, read with Section 470 of Cr.P.C is concerned, the issue was neither raised by the Respondent No.2 before the concerned court nor the concerned court made any inquiry about the issue. Therefore, this Court does not find any relevancy in looking into that aspect. 37. Therefore, this Court does not find any relevancy in looking into that aspect. 37. This Court after due consideration of all the materials brought before this Court, the case laws discussed above as well as the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties, is of the view that the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned District and Session Judge, Aalo, dated 09.08.2024 is not sustainable under the law and hence, the same is hereby set aside and quashed. In consequence, this Court restores the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo dated 02.12.2022. 38. With the above observations and directions, this instant petition is disposed of.