KANHAIYA LAL Vs. BHAGWAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal reference by the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore recommending that a case under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of a First Class Magistrate at Cawnpore, should be stayed till a civil suit is finally disposed of. On the last occasion, when this case came up for hearing, the learned advocate for the accused contended that not only the hearing should be adjourned, but that the criminal proceedings should be quashed altogether. As the learned vakil who appears to oppose this reference had no notice of this objection I allowed the case to be postponed in order that he might be prepared to argue the point raised.

(2.) The facts of the case are briefly as follows: Kanhaiya Lal, accused, has set up a will, dated the 27 of March 1922, said to have been executed by a lady, Mt. Basanti, who died two days after. Some time after her death the Will was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, and after contest by the complainant Bhagwan Das it was finally registered, though the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar suggests that he had some doubt as to whether the contents of the Will had been fully made known to the lady who was in a critical condition. There were a number of other Court proceedings to which Bhagwan Das was not a party in which this Will was mentioned though not actually produced by Kanhaiya Lal. I however ignore those proceedings altogether. On the 23 of September 1922, Kanhaiya Lal filed an application for obtaining a succession certificate, and in the course of this proceeding he mentioned the existence of the Will though he did not actually produce it. The succession certificate was granted to him on the ground that, he was the nearest heir, and the order granting the succession certificate was affirmed on appeal by the High Court.

(3.) On the 4 of February 1925, Kanhaiya Lal filed a complaint under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code before the City Magistrate of Cawnpore against Bhagwan Das in respect of certain articles said to have been taken possession of by him, which belonged originally to the deceased lady and which, according to the complainant, had been bequeathed to him. In this case the disputed Will was actually produced before the Court and evidence was led to prove it. After the complainant's evidence had been closed a charge was framed against the accused, but before the case came up for final hearing the complainant Kanhaiya Lal instituted a civil suit on the 3 of March 1925, on the strength of that Will. He filed a certified copy of the Will along with the plaint and stated that the original was on the criminal Court's record and would be produced as soon as it; was obtained from there. Later on, on the 18 of March 1925, the complainant applied to the criminal Court for leave to withdraw the complaint on the allegation that he had already filed a civil suit and the dispute would be considered by that Court. The learned Magistrate, although the charge had been framed, instead of acquitting the accused in that case discharged him. On the 21 of March 1925 Bhagwan Das filed a complaint under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code against Kanhaiya Lal in respect of the disputed Will, alleging that it was a forged document and that an offence described under Section 463 had been committed.