Thereafter, investigation was taken up. Charges were framed against the petitioners. She challenged the same. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the claim. Hence, the instant petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the other charges are concerned the petitioner proposes to contest them in the trial. However so far as an offence under Section 467 of the IPC is concerned. He pleads that no offence can be made out under the said section. That even if the case of the prosecution is to be accepted that there is a tampering of OMR sheet that does not come under a definition of 'Valuable Security' as stated in Section 467 of the IPC. Hence, he pleads that the so far as Section 467 of the IPC is concerned, the petition be allowed and the charges framed against the petitioner be quashed so far as this section is concerned. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. On considering the contentions, we do not find any merit in the petition. So far as Section 467 of the IPC is concerned, the same pertains to forgery of a 'Valuable Security', Will etc. The same refers to a document which has been forged for the purposes of receiving any interest. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Single Bench Judgment of the Gwalior Bench of this court reported in with reference to para 12.5, which has been forged for the purposes of receiving any interest. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Single Bench judgment of the Gwalior Bench of this court a reading of the same would clearly indicate that whoever forges a document in order to receive any benefit of such forgery, the question of forgery of a valuable security would arise for consideration. The reasoning finds a support vide Section 30 of the IPC, which also postulates what a "Valuable Security" means. It denotes a document where any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released for which