NIMISH NEMA Vs. LAXMI NEMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2017 [Annexure-A-3] passed by JMFC Damoh in Complaint case No.884/2017 whereby the learned trial Court registered the criminal complaint under Section 500 of the IPC and issued notice to the applicant for his appearance.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition in short are that, applicant's mother and respondent No.1 are real sister and the respondent No.2 is son of the respondent No.1 and cousin of applicant. Smt. Brijrani, mother of the respondent No.1 who was also mother of applicant died. After her death, she left some immovable property which was to be distributed amongst the successors i.e. Laxmi, Krishna and Narayani, but as per respondent No.2, she executed a Will in his favour and on the basis of aforesaid Will, respondent No.2 is entitled to hold all immovable and movable property left by Brijrani. Applicant who is son of Smt. Krishna and he is the sole successor of Smt. Krishna, in this respect, he claimed that he is one third successor of the property left by Brijrani. After death of Brijrani, when his share has not been given by the respondents, he send a notice to that effect claiming one third share in the property left by Brijrani and also denied for the execution of the Will. He stated in the notice that respondents prepared the forged documents and trying to grab the whole property of the Brijrani. In the last para of the notice it is clearly mentioned that if the applicant is not given his one third share, he will institute court proceedings.

(3.) Both the respondents being aggrieved by that notice filed a complaint before the Court of CJM Damoh under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC., claiming therein that Brijrani before her death voluntarily executed a Will, but the applicant alleges that Will is forged and the same was prepared by the respondents and convinced this fact to other relatives and known persons and alleged therein that this act comes under the purview of defamation because of this the image/reputation of the respondents amongst other relative lowered down in the family.