This application is directed against the order dated 17.12.2003 in C.P. Case No. 275 of 2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners under section 469 and 471 of the IPC.

2. It appears that O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint alleging therein that he entered into an agreement with petitioner no. 1 for supply of workman/ watch-guard. It is further stated that in view of the agreement, a work order issued on 18.2.1994, however, the said work order was amended from time to time lastly on 1.4.1999. It is further alleged that the petitioners/accused unilaterally made variation in the aforesaid work order vide letter dated 26.6.2001. It is further stated that the accused/petitioners have no power to make variation unilaterally in the terms of contract. It is stated that such variation made in the contract with intent to cause financial loss to the complainant and also to harm his reputation. Accordingly, it is alleged that the accused/petitioners committed an offence under section 469 and 471 of the IPC.

3. It appears that complainant examined himself on S.A. and also three witnesses during the enquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C.. It further appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vide order dated 17.12.2003 after considering the material prima facie, come to the conclusion that offences under section 469 , 471 of the IPC are made out against petitioners, accordingly, he took cognizance and issued process against petitioners. Aforesaid order challenged in the present application.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that from the perusal of complaint petition, it is clear that dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. It is further submitted that even if said allegations accepted on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute offences under section 469 and 471 of the I.P.C. Thus, the order taking cognizance is an abuse of the process of court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant .O.P. No. 2 submits that the petitioners/accused unilaterally changed terms and condition of the agreement with a view to cause harm to the reputation of complainant and also by using the said document cause financial loss to the complainant, thus offences under section 469 and 471 of the IPC are made out.

6. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of impugned order, I find that learned court below took cognizance under section 469 and 471 of the IPC. Forgery has been defined under section 463 of the IPC, which runs as under:-

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.

7. The words 'making of false documents' as stated in section 463 of the IPC has been further explained under section 464 of the IPC, which runs 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 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, dishonest