S.P.GARG, J.

1. Instant revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 19.05.2007 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby they were ordered to be charged for commission of offences under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC. The petitions are contested by the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.

2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that during arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, stated that petitioners have opted not to challenge the impugned order under Section 471 IPC. Arguments were restricted / confined to challenge the correctness of the charges under Sections 420/468/120B IPC. Learned Senior Counsel would urge that ingredient of Sections 415 IPC and 468 IPC are not attracted in the instant case. There was no “representation” made by the petitioners to respondents No.2 & 3 and no “property” whatsoever was delivered by them pursuant to that. Merely because of alleged forgery of the documents i.e. Retirement Deed and Receipts, it cannot be inferred that the petitioners were liable for committing offences under Sectio