SANJAY PAHUJA Vs. STATE OF M.P.`

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the facts of all the four miscellaneous criminal cases are same and they are arising out of same crime number, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR has been registered upon direction of the Court in a private complainant in terms of Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is contended that the matter is between real brothers and it arises from a will dtd. 20/11/1998 said to be executed by deceased Kondaram Pahuja, who was father of the applicants Ved Prakash, Kailash, Chandraban, Ashok Kumar Pahuja and grand father of applicant - Sanjay Pahuja. Late Kondaram had five sons and in the will dtd. 20/11/1998 he made three sons as beneficiaries namely Ashok, Ved Prakash and Kailash while another son i.e. applicant Chandraban was made beneficiary only to the extent of Rs.3,000.00 per month and his son Sanjay Pahuja was made beneficiary of the will in respect of the land received from industries department in lease and factory running thereon. Whereas the fifth son, Vijay who is the complainant herein was not made the beneficiary in the will. It is a case of prosecution that the will is a forged one and was not actually executed by deceased Kondaram.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants argued that earlier proceedings for Letters of Administration was initiated by complainant Vijay in the year 2012, wherein the non applicants who are beneficiaries of the will appeared and placed their plea about their rights on the basis of the will. Complainant made allegation that the will is not a genuine one, however, the Court rejected the applicant for issuance of Letters of Administration by keeping open the issue of validity of will. It is contended that the knowledge of the will came to the complainant at least in the year 2012, when the proceedings of Letters of Administration was initiated. Thereafter the complainant even filed a civil suit before the civil Court for declaring the said will as null and void and the said suit is still pending before the civil Court i.e. before District Judge, Indore. It is contended that the dispute is between real brothers relating to the FIR and all the brothers are in the evening of their life and aged more than 70 years while even the son of the applicant Chandraban is aged more than 50 years. The dispute being between the members of the family and the will being in the knowledge of the complainant since at least 10 to 12 years, then in such a circumstances, the arrest of the applicants at such a stage would not be in the interest of justice. On these grounds prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made. So far as the applicant Chandraban is concerned, it is contended that even in the Letters of Administration proceedings, he did not object to letters of administrations in favour of complainant Vijay as he was not beneficiary of the will.