JUDGMENT : This petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 547 of 2008 ‘Ravinder Singh Saini vs. Sewa Singh and others’ relating to offences punishable under Section 120-B, 468, 420 I.P.C. and the summoning order dated 27.11.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in said case, pending before him. 2. Brief facts, which emerge out from the record, are that complainant/respondent no.2, namely Ravindra Singh Saini is the power of attorney holder of his two real brothers, namely Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh. On 23.07.2008, the complainant filed a complaint case, bearing Criminal Case No. 547 of 2008 under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur against the petitioners with the assertion that he is filing the complaint case as power of attorney of Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh. It is alleged in the complaint that one Banta Singh S/o Banga Singh (father of petitioner nos. 1 & 2 and grandfather of petitioner nos. 3, 4 & 5), Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh are co-sharer of Khata No. 63 and 96 situate at village Narkhera, Tehsil Bazpur. Banta Singh has died and after his death the petitioners Sewa Singh and Gurdeep Singh with the intension to grab the land of Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh, drafted two unregistered Wills of Banta Singh on 12.02.2000. Each of the forged Wills was drafted having variation of recital, as one paragraph has been added in one of the Wills. The petitioners Sewa Singh and Gurdeep Singh, in order to give undue benefit to their children i.e. petitioner nos. 4, 5 and 6, filed mutation suit before Naib Tehsildar, Bazpur and got their names mutated for 2.993 hectare of land against existing land of 2.458 hectare. The petitioners in order to harm Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh exercised the Wills dated 12.02.2000 pretending these Wills as genuine. Petitioner nos. 4 & 6 moved an application on 03.01.2007 before Naib Tehsildar, Bazpur seeking correction of entries in the revenue records, admitting that an excess land measuring 8 Bigha 10 Bishwa has been recorded in their names, while the petitioner nos. Petitioner nos. 4 & 6 moved an application on 03.01.2007 before Naib Tehsildar, Bazpur seeking correction of entries in the revenue records, admitting that an excess land measuring 8 Bigha 10 Bishwa has been recorded in their names, while the petitioner nos. 4 to 8 in furtherance of their common intention, got recorded their statement on the basis of forged Wills before the Naib Tehsildar, Bazpur and in order to grab the land of Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh prepared forged Wills and used these Wills. The petitioner no.3 Harvinder pretending the forged Will as genuine filed the same before Addl. District Judge, Kashipur and got substituted himself. Both the Wills are of 12.02.2000, witness are same and have been scribed by one Dinesh Chandra Sharma. It is alleged that on 18.06.2008 the complainant tried to lodge First Information Report at P.S. Bazpur, but his endeavours failed. Being constrained, the complainant filed a complaint case against the petitioners except one Mr. Avatar Singh S/o Banta Singh. The complainant got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and in support of his complaint, he examined C.W.1 Malkeet Singh under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The complainant also filed documentary evidence. It appears that the Trial Court, having gone through the evidence on record, after satisfying with the material available on record, vide its order dated 27.11.2008, prima facie, took cognizance in the matter and summoned the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 468 and 420 I.P.C. Being aggrieved by the order of Trial Court, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal and Manav Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners, Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2 and perused the entire material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned summoning order has been passed in mechanical manner. He contended that the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 had no reason to fabricate a forged Will of their father, namely, Banta Singh, who died on 28.03.2000 and the Will was drafted on 12.02.2000 and as per the Will, the share of Banta Singh was given to Harvinder Singh S/o Sewa Singh and petitioner nos. 1 & 2 were not benefited personally or either ways. 1 & 2 had no reason to fabricate a forged Will of their father, namely, Banta Singh, who died on 28.03.2000 and the Will was drafted on 12.02.2000 and as per the Will, the share of Banta Singh was given to Harvinder Singh S/o Sewa Singh and petitioner nos. 1 & 2 were not benefited personally or either ways. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically contended that Malkeet Singh and Banta Singh were jointly contesting Civil Case No. 28 of 1985 ‘Banta Singh, Malkeet Singh vs. Karam Chand and others’, for specific performance in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge, Nainital, as plaintiffs, with a common motive regarding an agreement to sale, jointly made in their favour and this case was decreed on 10.03.1995 and thereafter, they jointly filed an execution case before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Udham Singh Nagar. He contended that during the pendency of execution case, Banta Singh died and as per his Will, Harvinder Singh/petitioner no.3 moved substitution application before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rudrapur and on the basis of the Will in dispute, the substitution application was allowed. He contended that till 21.04.2008 when the substituted party 1/1 Harvinder Singh filed an amendment application on 03.03.2008, neither Malkeet Singh nor any other person had any objection on the substitution application. He contended that after a lapse of more than eight years, Malkeet Singh on his own, filed objection to the amendment application on 21.04.2008, challenging the impugned Will of Late Banta Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that after a lapse of more than eight years i.e. on 03.05.2008, Malkeet Singh filed objection in the Mutation Case No. 30/157 of 1999-2000, on the basis that he came to know about the Will on 03.05.2008. It is further contended that right from 1985 to 03.05.2008 i.e. during the course of whole litigation, Malkeet Singh did not require any power of attorney, however, on 06.05.2008, instantly after three days of filing his objection dated 21.04.2008 and 03.05.2008, he made the complainant his power of attorney. He contended that application dated 03.03.2008 and objection dated 21.04.2008 are still pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kashipur. He contended that application dated 03.03.2008 and objection dated 21.04.2008 are still pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kashipur. Further the objections of Malkeet Singh dated 03.05.2008 filed against the mutation of Harvinder Singh in place of Late Banta Singh in Mutation Case No. 30/157 of 1999-2000 are still pending before Tehsildar, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as soon as the applicants came to know that some area has been wrongly entered in their names, they moved application dated 03.01.2007 praying to decrease the area, which was wrongly entered in their names. He contended that late Banta Singh was the co-sharer of land in dispute, hence only the land which was entered in his share, was entered in the name of petitioner nos. 3, 4 & 5, therefore the power of attorney is not affected. He contended that a registered sale deed has been executed in the name of Harvinder Singh/petitioner no.3 (now deceased), hence the Will executed in favour of Harvinder Singh stands upheld by the Court of Law and there remains no reason to doubt its genuineness and correctness. He also contended that the respondent no.2 murdered the petitioner no.3, namely, Harvinder Singh S/o Sewa Singh, with the help of his brother Malkeet Singh, of whom he holds the power of attorney. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that cause of action in the case in hand is of civil nature and the dispute, on which the criminal complaint case is based, is already subjudice in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kashipur as well as before the Revenue Court. He contended that it is settled law that if the dispute between same parties is pending in the Civil Court on the set of same facts, no criminal case will lie. Lastly, he contended that the complainant and Malkeet Singh are not affected by the execution of the impugned Will, thus, the impugned summoning order is against the law and the whole proceedings deserve to be quashed. 7. On the other hand Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the learned Magistrate, after application of judicial mind and after perusal of documentary evidence on record, summoned the applicants. 7. On the other hand Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the learned Magistrate, after application of judicial mind and after perusal of documentary evidence on record, summoned the applicants. He submitted that the applicants having after meeting of mind, prepared forged Wills and filed before Competent Court, using as genuine with criminal conspiracy to grab the land of Malkeet Singh and gave false evidence before the competent Court and got mutation order on the basis of forged Wills. He contended that details of entire land is not given in the Wills. He contended that the impugned Wills (annexure no.CA-2 and 3) are forged and fictitious documents and have been prepared after the death of Banta Singh. He contended that the impugned forged Wills were prepared on same day i.e. on 12.02.2000, though having variation of recital only to add paragraph no.3 in the second Will. He vehemently contended that the petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 5 have admitted this fact in the application dated 03.01.2007 filed before the Naib Tehsildar, Bazpur that land measuring 8 Bigha 10 Bishwa was wrongly entered in their names (annexure no. CA-1). He vehemently contended that it is utterly out of imagine that without canceling the first Will, late Banta Singh executed second Will on the same day. He contended that Sewa Singh was doing Pairvi in the execution case and Malkeet Singh was not aware in this regard because of his business and domestic work and farming, therefore, facts of substitution on the basis of forged Will could not come to the notice of Malkeet Singh and as soon as this fact came to his notice, he filed objection before the Addl. District Judge, Kashipur. He argued that truthfulness of the averments made by the petitioners require evidence and that can only be possible, if the case is tried by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the complainant relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2009 (2) SCC (Cri) 332, in which the Apex Court has held that “for quashing of charge-sheet the High Court has inherent jurisdiction and where the allegation of fraud and forgery are there, such power be exercise to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice. Court can quash charge-sheet, if allegations in FIR or complaint petition do not disclose commission of offence even if on face value they are taken to be correct in their entirety. While doing so, High Court is not to embark upon appreciation of evidence, but to consider only material on record as a whole though the High court is required to consider as to whether the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint petition fulfill the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused. Further, dispute being primarily of civil nature is not by itself a ground to quash criminal proceedings because in cases of forgery and fraud there would always be some element of civil nature.” 8. Form the facts, as narrated above it prima-facie established that the impugned Wills were prepared on same day i.e. on 12.02.2000, though having variation of recital only to add paragraph no.3 in the second Will. The petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 5 have admitted this fact in the application dated 03.01.2007 filed before the Naib Tehsildar, Bazpur that land measuring 8 Bigha 10 Bishwa was wrongly entered in their names. Further, which of the Wills is genuine and readable in the evidence, is obscure. The petitioners Sewa Singh and Gurdeep Singh filed mutation suit before Naib Tehsildar, Bazpur and got their names mutated for 2.993 hectare of land against existing land of 2.458 hectare. All these factual and disputed questions cannot be resolved or appreciated in the jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. but it is the Trial Court to see, after recording evidence of the witnesses of the incident and by cross-examining the witnesses in order to reach to a just decision of the case. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant cannot be discarded at the threshold but the same requires to be proved, therefore issuing summons to the petitioners, for their trial, cannot be said to be an unlawful order. The petitioners have ample opportunity before the Trial Court to defend themselves, by cross-examining the witnesses of the complainant as well as by producing their own defence. As held out by Hon’ble the Apex Court in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri), 332 (Supra) dispute being primarily of civil nature is not by itself a ground to quash criminal proceedings because in cases of forgery and fraud there would always be some element of civil nature. As held out by Hon’ble the Apex Court in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri), 332 (Supra) dispute being primarily of civil nature is not by itself a ground to quash criminal proceedings because in cases of forgery and fraud there would always be some element of civil nature. The matter pertains to the Wills executed in the year 2000, therefore, taking into account the admission of the parties, it will not be in the interest of justice to keep the proceedings pending or lingering on for such a long period. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that inherent power conferred on the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 13 of the judgment, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474 - Hamida vs. Rashid, in which scope of 482 petitions is discussed, are reproduced below:- “7. It is well-established principle that inherent power conferred on the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done. The content and scope of power under Section 482 CrPC were examined in considerable detail in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra and it was held as under: (SCC p. 555, para 8) the following principles may be stated in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court: (1)that the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; (2)that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; (3)that it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. 8. In State v. Navjot Sandhu after a review of large number of earlier decisions, it was held as under: (SCC p. 657, para 29) “29…. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. 8. In State v. Navjot Sandhu after a review of large number of earlier decisions, it was held as under: (SCC p. 657, para 29) “29…. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out hereinabove fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This power should not be exercised against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some other enactment.” 13. Before parting with the case, we feel constrained to observe that in spite of repeated pronouncements of this Court that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in rare cases and that too when miscarriage of justice is done, the High Court entertained the petition under Section 482 CrPC, the ultimate result whereof was that the order of bail granted in favour of the accused for an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC enured to their benefit even after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC and also subsequently when charge had been framed against them under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC. The accused did not remain in custody even for a single day nor did they approach the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Judge for being granted bail under Section 304 or 302 IPC, yet they got the privilege of bail under the aforesaid offences by virtue of the order passed by the High Court. The dockets of the High Courts are full and there is a long pendency of murder appeals in the High Court from which this case has arisen. The dockets of the High Courts are full and there is a long pendency of murder appeals in the High Court from which this case has arisen. Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 CrPC at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, as is the case here, or to delay the trial which will enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice.” 10. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that in case the petitioners surrender before the Court concerned, their bail applications shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously. Stay order dated 10.01.2009 stands vacated. It is observed that the Trial Court may not be influenced, in any manner, with the observations made by this Court in this judgment. Registry is directed to send copy of the judgment to the Court concerned.