IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C482) No. 137 Of 2005 1. Smt. Sushila Mishra (Pathak) W/O Late Shri Raghunath Mishra, 2. Smt. Manjula Devendra, D/O Late Shri Raghunath Mishra, Both R/O 14, Mohini Road, Police Station Dalanwala, Dehradun. District Dehradun ………..….. Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Sudhanshu Mishra (Pathak) S/O Late Shri Raghunath Mishra R/O 14, Mohini Road, Police Station Dalanwala, Dehradun. District Dehradun ………… Respondents Shri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate present for the petitioners Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. present for the State/respondent no.1 Shri D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate present for the respondent no.2/complainant Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case no.237 of 2003, Sudhanshu Mishra (Pathak) vs. Sushila Mishra (Pathak), relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) It is alleged in the Criminal complaint filed by respondent no.2 Sudhanshu Mishra that his grandmother Jayanti Pathak was owner of the property in question in respect of which she executed a ‘Will’ dated 04.10.1982 in his favour, whereafter she died on 09.08.1983. The accused/petitioner no.1 is mother of the complainant and accused petitioner no.2 Majula Devendra is sister of the complainant. It is alleged that petitioner no.1 got prepared forged ‘Will’ dated 19.10.1970 in her favour purporting to have been executed by Jayanti Pathak. The allegation of the complainant is this, that on the basis of said ‘Will’ the petitioners are disposing of the property owned by the complainant. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the criminal complaint are false. Whether allegations in the criminal complaints are false or not, and whether the petitioners are innocent or not, are the questions of fact which can be examined by the trial court after recording the evidence. It is not desirable on the part of this court to examine this issue on the basis of the half-baked evidence before it. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as the final merits of this case, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 10.05.2010 N.P.