SATISH BADAYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal miscellaneous petition under Sec. 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR No.0289/2019 dtd. 29/5/2019 registered at Police Station Chitrakoot, District Jaipur (West) for the offences under Ss. 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant/respondent No.2 has filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against him in the Court of learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur wherein, in his written statement filed on 20/8/2018, he has specifically averred that Late Shri Radheshyam Badya, their father, has executed a Will dtd. 14/4/2016 of the house in question in his favour. He submitted that thereafter, the complainant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint wherein he has specifically averred that five documents including the Will in question, were forged by the petitioner (defendant No.2), his wife and their late father. He, therefore, submitted that thereby the complainant has admitted that the Will was executed by their late father. Learned counsel submitted that thereafter with much delay, the FIR came to be lodged on 29/5/2019 that too on the basis of opinion of private handwriting expert which could not be the basis of the allegations contained therein. Relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.: (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 794, Mukul Agarwal and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.: (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 402, Mohini Hemant Jadia Vs. Hemant Ghanshyamlal Jadia and Ors.: (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 767 and Sardool Singh and Anr. Vs. Smt. Nasib Kaur: 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 146, learned counsel submitted that since the civil Court is already seized of the matter wherein the question of genuineness of the Will is to be examined, the FIR in question is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence and hence, the same cannot be quashed by this Court under Sec. 482 CrPC. They submitted that the allegations therein are based not only on the opinion of the private handwriting expert; but, travel beyond that also. With regard to the averments made in the application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, learned counsel for the complainant contended that there are specific allegations therein as to preparation of forged and fabricated Will by the petitioner in collusion with his wife. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr.: (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 370, Syed Askari Hadi AM Augustine Imam and Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and Anr.: (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 528, Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.: 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 171 and K. Jagdish Vs. Udaya Kumar G.S. and Anr. AIR 2020 SC 936 in support of his submissions that civil as well as criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously and in case of any conflict, the criminal proceedings will have primacy over the civil proceedings.