IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 915 of 2011 1. Smt. Mithlesh W/o Late Som Prakash 2. Sandeep Sharma S/o Late Som Prakash 3. Smt. Archana Devi W/o Sandeep Sharma All R/o Village Naugaon, District Rampur. ………………............Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary, Home Dehradun. 2. Smt. Poonam Sharma W/o Sanjeev Sharma, D/o Late Shri Mukesh Sharma, R/o Village Khubbanpur, Police Station Bhagwanpur Haridwar ………….........Respondents Smt. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the State. Sri. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate, present for the respondent No.2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 (2) 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 Case No. 1200 of 2011, State Vs. Sanjeet Sharma and others, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and one punishable under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police StationBhagwanpur, District Hardwar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. (3) Counter affidavits are filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2. Same are taken on record. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 is mother-in-law, aged more than 60 years, petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law (JETH) and petitioner No.3 is Sister-in-law (JETHANI) of the respondent No.2, Smt. Poonam Sharma. It is further pleaded that due to matrimonial discord between the 3 respondent No.2 and her husband Sanjeev Sharma, petitioners are falsely implicated. Copy of First Information Report discloses that there are specific allegation made against the husband of the respondent No.2. He is not the petitioner before this Court. (5) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, and learned counsel for the complainant, it is stated that after investigation sufficient material was found against the petitioners, and only thereafter the charge sheet was filed against them. (6) The factual pleas of innocence cannot be examined by this Court on the basis of half baked evidence before it. It is for the trial court to examine such pleas, if raised before it, after recording the evidence of the parties. (7) In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case pending before the trial court, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed, with the 4 observation that if the petitioners Smt. Mithlesh, Sandeep Sharma and Smt. Archana Devi, surrender before the court concerned, their bail applications shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay, keeping in mind that Smt. Mithlesh and Smt. Archana Devi are women, and Smt. Mithlesh is also a senior citizen, and that as against the petitioners including Sanjeev Sharma, there are no specific allegations made in the First Information Report. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.01.12.2011 N.P