Court Dismisses Petition to Quash FIR Alleging Forgery, Despite Ongoing Probate Proceedings
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) related to allegations of forgery concerning a disputed Will, despite parallel civil and probate proceedings challenging the Will's validity. The judgment, delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, emphasized the distinct nature of civil and criminal liabilities, asserting that the pendency of civil proceedings does not bar criminal investigations if a cognizable offence is alleged.
The case revolves around a registered Will executed by the late Sh. Narender Kishore Khanna, which was purportedly forged according to allegations made by his son, Nitesh Khanna. The dispute over the Will's genuineness has been ongoing since 2014 in probate proceedings. However, the controversy took a criminal turn when Nitesh Khanna, armed with a private handwriting expert's report, filed a complaint leading to the registration of an FIR against Babita Chopra, the petitioner's sister.
Chopra, who sought to quash the FIR, argued that the ongoing probate proceedings should preclude criminal prosecution. Her petition was grounded on the assertion that the expert's report, which she claimed was inconclusive and unreliable, formed the sole basis of the criminal allegations. However, the court maintained that expert evidence, while advisory, does not negate the prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence.
The court cited several precedents, emphasizing that criminal proceedings must not be stifled at the threshold unless it is evident that no prima facie offence is made out. It underscored the principle that civil and criminal liabilities, though arising from the same set of facts, operate in distinct legal spheres. The judgment highlighted that allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents constitute independent offences under criminal law, meriting investigation irrespective of concurrent civil adjudication.
Justice Krishna further noted that the High Court should refrain from conducting a mini-trial or evaluating the evidence's reliability at this initial stage. The court reiterated that the investigation should be allowed to proceed to uncover the truth, with any shortcomings in the allegations to be addressed during the trial phase.
This decision serves as a reaffirmation of the legal stance that criminal investigations should not be prematurely curtailed by parallel civil proceedings, ensuring that allegations of criminal conduct are thoroughly examined to uphold justice.
Bottom Line:
Criminal proceedings alleging forgery of a Will can proceed even when the validity of the Will is being contested in pending civil and probate proceedings.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 467, 471; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 482, 156(3), 91, 173, 200, 202; Evidence Act, 1872 Section 45
Babita Chopra v. State (GNCT); Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838799
