Execution of a document by a person claiming a property, even if it is not his property, cannot be considered a false document under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, does not attract the offences under Sections 467, 468.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.2 and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 28.05.2013 passed in Cr. Rev. No.68 of 2010 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder learned revisional court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.02.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh by which learned court below rejected the petition for discharge filed by the petitioners under Section 245 Cr.P.C..

3. The complaint case bearing Complaint Case No.165 of 2006 was lodged by the complainant/Opp. Party No.2 against these petitioners, alleging therein that the petitioner No.1- Amar Lal Mahto, by claiming himself to be the son of late Jhari Mahto sold the land to the petitioner No.2 on 25.11.2005 by registered sale deed.

4. On such complaint, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against these petitioners.

5. Subsequently, a petition for discharge was filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. on behalf of these petitioners praying therein to discharge them from the case. That petition was rejected vide order dated 19.02.2010. That order was challenged before the revisional court in Cr. Rev. No.68 of 2010. The aforesaid Cr. Revision Application was dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2013, holding therein that the petitioner No.1 by falsely claiming himself to be the son of late Jhari Mahto, has sold the land to the petitioner No.2 and thereby, they have committed offence of forgery and cheating. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed.

6. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is the case of the complainant that the petitioner No.1-Amar Lal Mahto never happens to be the son of late Jhari Mahto but by claiming himself to be the son of late Jhari Mahto, the petitioner No.1 sold a piece of land to the petitioner No.2, but this assertion of the complainant gets falsified from a sale deed executed jointly by these petitioners and the complainant wherein it has been shown that the petitioner No.1 happened to be the son of late Jhari Mahto, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ application. Not only that, the complainant had brought a Partition Suit before the competent court of law wherein complainant had arrayed the petitioner No.1 as one of the defendants and his father has been shown as late Jhari Mahto. That suit was decreed wherein the decree drawn would go to show that the petitioner No.1 is the son of late Jhari Mahto. Thus, these documents falsify the case of the complainant that the petitioner is not the son of Jhari Mahto and in that view of the matter, no offence is made out if the petitioner No.1 has sold the land to the petitioner No.2 by claiming the land of his own being the son of late Jhari Mahto, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. {(2009) 8 SCC 751}.

7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.2 submits that the sale deed upon which learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed his reliance, showing execution of a deed jointly by these petitioners and also by the complainant, has been challenged before the competent court of law vide Title Suit No.190 of 2007. Further submission, which was advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that it is true that in the complaint, the petitioner No.1 was arrayed as defendant No.17 wherein father's name has been shown as late Jhari Mahto, but the finding of the court is otherwise wherein it has been observed that the petitioner No.1 Amar Lal Mahto is never the son of Jhari Mahto and further observation is that the complainant is the sole son of Jhari Mahto and, therefore, in view of the finding given in the judgment, the