RAMESH KUMAR Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE for the petitioner. On the previous date of hearing, namely, 15. 12. 06, the matter was renotified at the request of counsel for the petitioner. Prior to that on 17. 11. 06, the petitioner was un-represented.

(2.) THIS revision challenges an order on charge dated 14. 03. 06 by which the petitioner and other accused were charged with having committed offences under sections 467 and 420 read with Section 120b Indian Penal Code (IPC ). The First information in this case was lodged on 06. 11. 95. The petitioner is the son of Late ms. Swaran Khullar, who died on 13. 07. 92. The complainant/informant is Mr. Mulk Raj khullar is the brother of the accused. According to the informant, the deceased's mother had executed a registered Will on 23. 01. 87 by which he was entitled to l/4th undivided share in some immovable property. It was alleged that on 15. 09. 92, he received a notice from some counsel informing about the existence of a registered will dated 03. 03. 92. The informant/ complainant procured a certified copy of the Will said to have been executed by Late ms. Swaran Khullar on 03. 03. 92.

(3.) ACCORDING to him, the Will disclosed discrepancies. He, therefore, lodged a First information Report with the police, which led to the matter being investigated and a charge-sheet being filed on 13. 12. 2001. In the interregnum, the accused filed a partition suit in which the disputed Will was propounded. That suit was subsequently transferred to the Additional District Judge where it is said to be pending. The charge-sheet, inter alia, recorded that even though no definite opinion could be given vis-a-vis the signatures of the testatorix, yet the report based on a comparison of the thumb impression on three different Wills (namely, 1976, 1987 and the disputed Will)suggested that there was a doubt over the authenticity of the disputed Will, said to have been executed by Ms. Swaran Khullar. The charge-sheet also alleged that the records of the Sub-Registrar were discrepant in the sense that in the concerned register, in the place where where the name "ms. Swaran Khullar" ought to have been shown, what was mentioned was "mr. Sardari Lal marwah". The Sub-Registrar, in a proceeding before this Court had stated that the Will of mr. Sardari Lal Marwah in fact existed and was relatable to the serial number for which ms. Swaran Khullar's Will was alleged to have been registered.