I.P. Singh, J.

1. This is an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 2.6.1995 passed by Shri R.B.N. Sahay, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rosera in Tr. No. 342/94-153/95 by which he rejected the prayer of the Petitioner to frame charge under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code against opposite second party.

2. From the prosecution case it appears that the Petitioner lodged F.I.R. before Rosera police station against opposite second party alleging, inter alia, that ali of them conspired together and opposite party No. 2 presenting himself to be the son of Mahanth Karm Jyoti executed a sale deed in favour of opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 in collusion with opposite party Nos. 6 to 8 for 10 Kathas 14 Dhurs of land recorded in the name of idol of Maniari Math. The police after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against the opposite second under Sections 419, 420, 423 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In course of the trial the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. On the basis of their evidence an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code was also made out. The Petitioner filed a petition before the trial court to frame charge also under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite second party filed a rejoinder to this petition and after hearing both the parties the learned trial court rejected the prayer of the Petitioner by the impugned order dated 2.6.1995 on the ground that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the Mahantship between opposite party No. 2, Deo Kant Jyoti and Mahanth Ram Nehora Jyoti at the time of execution of the sale deed and, therefore, no offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed.

4. The Petitioner has further contended that the learned trial court has committed grave error by coming to this conclusion. The witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner have clearly stated that Ram Nehora Jyoti was the Mahanth and before the execution of the sale deed by opposite, party No. 2 all dispute over the Mahantship had ended. It is well settled that if any person pretending to be another person disposes of any property by registered sale deed an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The allegation against opposite party No. 2 is that he is not the son of Mohanth Karm Jyoti rather the name of his father is late Sobha Kant Jha. By describing himself as the son of Mahanth Karn Jyoti while executing the sale deed he has clearly committed an offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned court below failed to appreciate that the essential ingredients for constituting the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code were very much established. The learned court below should have taken into consideration that the sale deed (Ext. 2) was executed by opposite party No. 2 in the capacity of the son of late Mahanth Karm Jyoti. However, the learned court below was wrong in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner by passing the impugned order. It has, therefore, been prayed that the impugned order be quashed.

5. The Petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit in which he has contended that opposite party No. 2 had executed the sale deed not in the capacity of Mahanth or the manager of the Mahanth but by pretending himself to be the son of late Karm Jyoti as well appear from the F.I.R. (Annexure 2). The witnesses examined in support of the prosecution have also supported the case on the basis of which an offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code has clearly been made out.

6. I have heard the parties in detail. The copy of the sale deed said to be executed by opposite party No. 2 is Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit. This sale deed shows that opposite party No. 2 has described himself to be the son of Karm Jyoti and admittedly the sale deed relates to the land belonging to the Math. Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit is the F.I.R. the photo copy of this order of the Special Officer is Annexure-3. It shows that opposite party No. 2 had filed C.W.J.C. No. 5037 of 1983 before this Court contending that on the death of Mahanth Indradeo he had become the new Mahanth of the Math. In this writ application Mahanth Ram Nehora Jyoti is the interveneor before this Court. The order dated 19.10.1987 passed by this Court will show that a direction was given to constitute a committee under Section 32 of the Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 and the dispute with respect of the Mahantship was required to be decided by a competent court. From this it would appear that admittedly there was bona-fide dispute between opposite party No. 2 and Mahanth Ram Nehora Jyoti with respect to the disputed land. As such it cannot be said that the execution of the sale deed by opposite party No. 2 was dishonest or fraudulent as defined in Sections 24 end 25 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the opposite party No. 2 is that he has committed the offence of forgery by executing the sale deed (Annexure-1) to the supplementary affidavit by describing himself to be the son of Mahanth Karn Jyoti. On the completion of investigation the police, however, submitted charge sheet against opposite second party under Sections 419, 420, 423 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The question that will now arise for consideration would be whether under the facts and circumstances of this case any offence punishable Under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is made out or not.

7. Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code gives the definition of cheating. Section 416 deals with the definition of cheating by personation. From the allegation made in the present case against the opposite party No. 2 it would appear that though he executed the sale deed in his own name he has wrongly described himself to be the son of Karan Jyoti. Under the circumstances will it amount only to an offence under Section 416 of the Indian Penal Code or also under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as Section 416 is concerned a person is said to cheat by personation if he cheats by pretending to be some other person or by knowingly substitutes one person for another or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. This offence is punishable under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. So far as the offence punsihable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned it relates to the offence of forgery. The definition of forgery has been given under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code according to which whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury to any person or to cause any person to part with any property with intention to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Now the question is what is the meaning of the word "making any false document" This has been defined under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code according to which a person is said to making false document who dishonestly or fraudulently executes a document with intention to cause it to be believe that such document was executed by the authority of a person by whom or whose authority he knows that it was not executed. Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the punishment for forgery. Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the punishment for forgery of valuable security etc.

9. In this background I have to find out whether a prima facie case under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out or not. As is well known at this stage I am only concerned with the finding out the commission of a prima facie offence since this is the stage of framing of the charge. The allegation against the opposite party No. 2 is not that he executed the sale deed in some body elses name. He has executed this sale deed in his own name. The allegation against him is that he has wrongly given his fathers name as Mahanth Karm Jyoti though he is the son of the Late Shobha Kant Jha. As has already been noted about there was a dispute between the parties with respect to the ownership of the property of this Math in relation to which C.W.J.C. No. 5037/83 was filed before this Court. Even the Special Officer in his report (Annexure-3) has given a detail or contents of the various documents filed by them. This would show that there was a bona-fide dispute between the parties. Under these circumstances I do not think at this stage any offence of forgery or making a false document as defined in Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code is made out to enable the court to frame the charge also under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code.

10. From the discussions made above, it becomes clear that there is no merit in this revision application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.