GOVIND PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No. 10/2001 registered at P.S. Rashmi for the offence under Sec. 420 IPC. According to First Information Report, the father of the parties being Roop Shankar purchased two stamps on 22.3.91 and handed over one stamp each to the two brothers, with a word that he will effect partition. Thereafter, Sh. Roop Shankar expired on 21.1.98, without effecting any partition, even without signing the stamp. It was then alleged that after death of Roop Shankar, the petitioner Govind Prasad, his father-in-law Badri Prasad, and Ram Lal, by joining hands dishonestly forged a false will, and for establishing that will, a case No. 105/99.has been instituted. It is thereupon only that the informant learnt about the forgery and after making further consequential averments, the first information report was lodged.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the application under Sec. 372 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act filed by the petitioner is already pending before the Court of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 1 Chhitorgarh wherein the question of existence or genuineness of the will is to be gone into the investigation of the present F.I.R. is required to be quashed or at least in the alternative to be stayed till disposal of the suit. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court reported in Dharam Chand Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1985 RLW 239, . and Bhagirath Vs. Hardayal & Ors. reported in 1993 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 427, . and a judgment of Honourable the Supreme Court in Tukaram Annanda Chavan & Anr. Vs. Machindra Yeshwant Patil reported in 2001 SCW 660, .