KANT TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri V.K. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned AGA appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Smt. Anjana Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respon­dent No. 2 and also perused the record. This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 26.2.2005 as well as proceeding of Complaint Case No. 334 of 2004 (Smt. Rasheddan v. Mahendra Wati and others). Shri V.K. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the im­pugned sale deed was executed by the re­spondent No. 2 by affixing her photograph thereon. The sale deed was executed not only by the respondent No. 2 but also by her co-sharers - Alimuddin and Khalilud-din. Therefore, there was no question of fraud especially when the other sellers have not challenged the sale-deed.
(2.) SMT . Anjana Singh, learned Coun­sel appearing for the private respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the re­spondent No. 2 is an illiterate widow. She has very clearly stated in the complaint that she did not execute the sale-deed and the applicants obtained the sale-deed from some other lady, who impersonated as the respondent No. 2 and put her photograph on the sale-deed. Therefore, the offences under sections 420/467/468 IPC are made out against the applicants. Copy of the complaint is on record, in which the respondent No. 2 has very clearly stated that the applicants, taking advantage of the fact that the respondent No. 2 was a illiterate widow, got the sale deed executed in their favour from some other woman. She had not only affixed her photograph on the sale-deed but also im­personated herself as the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, therefore, raised question of genuineness of sale deed and contended that the applicants obtained the same in a fraudulent manner. This Court in exercise of inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not re­quired to embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint. The facts stated in the complaint have to be treated at their face value and thereafter it is to be seen whether or not the complaint discloses commission of any offence or not. At this stage, a final verdict, either of guilt or inno­cence of the accused, cannot be recorded. In view of the fact that the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 discloses commis­sion of cognizable offences under sections 420/467/468 IPC and the learned Addi­tional C.J.M., on the basis of the materials collected under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. arrived at the conclusion that there was sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint against the applicants, the sum­moning order cannot be quashed. There­fore, the application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The application is dismissed. How­ever, keeping in view the facts and circum­stances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants - Smt. Mahendrawati, Sunil, Anil and Omkar appear before the Court concerned and apply for bail in the afore­said case, their prayer for bail shall be con­sidered and disposed of by the Court be­low in the light of the principles laid down in the case of lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (67) ACC 966 (SC) = 2009 (84) AIC 84 (84).;