KAMAL KISHORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR 429/03 under Sections 423/420/463/464/466/467/468/470/471/474/503/506/192/196/199/120 /506 /149 /34 IPC, P.S. K.Gate and subsequent proceedings taken thereon.

(2.) The relevant facts are that on the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent no.2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and pursuant to the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the above numbered FIR was registered and investigation taken up and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet stands already filed which is pending trial before the court of competent jurisdiction. The basis of the registration of the case being the alleged forgery of a Will dated 30.10.1997 purportedly executed by late Shri Harbhagwan, father of respondent no.2. Before the registration of the said FIR, respondent no.2 had filed a probate case in the Probate Court for grant of probate in respect of another Will dated 9.9.1997 purportedly executed by her father late Shri Harbhagwan. In the said probate proceedings, one Raj Kumar set up the Will dated 30.10.1997 as the last Will and testament of the deceased. The investigation conducted by the police has found that the Will dated 30.10.1997 propounded by the petitioner was a forged Will as it was not signed by the deceased Harbhagwan and based on the same, a charge-sheet has been put up.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto primarily on the ground that it was for the Probate Court which is seized of the matter i.e. the two Wills; one propounded by respondent no.2, and another propounded by a certain Raj Kumar, which alone could come to conclusion or finding as to which of the two Wills was a genuine Will of the deceased or which was a forged Will and depending on that, that Court alone was competent to direct initiation of any criminal proceedings against the petitioner. As against this, Mr.Khadaria, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has submitted that the FIR and the consequential proceedings taken thereon are not liable to be quashed more particularly so because even before the Will dated 30.10.1997 was produced by Mr.Raj Kumar in the Probate Court, an FIR had already been registered on the basis of a complaint made by respondent no.2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and investigation taken up. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Iqual Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another, 2005 Crl.L.J.2161, which has morefully dealt with the above facets and implications of Sections 195, 340 and 341 Cr.P.C., holding as under:-