BABITHA SURENDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate [Crl. side] appearing for the State.

(2.) A seminal issue arises for adjudication in this quash proceedings.

(3.) Mr.V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for Babitha submitted that, the genuineness of the impugned Will dated 02.08.2008 should have to be tested only by a civil Court and not in the criminal prosecution. He further submitted that Babitha was not in India on 02.08.2008 when the alleged Will is said to have been executed by Rajendran and therefore, the criminal prosecution against her is a sheer abuse of process of law. The last contention of Mr. V. Raghavachari is that, during the course of investigation, the police had obtained specimen handwritings and signatures from Bapitha for comparison, which is illegal and the Handwriting Examiners report based on such signatures and writings is not admissible in law, in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sapan Haldar and another v. State, 2012 8 AD(Del) 533 .