Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 while rebutting the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is overwhelming evidence collected during the investigation affirming the presence of testator at the relevant point of time in the hospital at Medanta situated at Gurgaon, which is hundreds of miles away from the place of execution of the will, which is said to be executed at Kanpur and thus the claim of her presence at a different place at the time of execution of will is nothing but implied denial of the signature and even if it has not been done in so many words it does not signify anything else than denial of the genuineness of the signature. Further submission is that the contents of the will also reveal some expressions which conclusively prove the concocted nature of the document. Learned counsel has tried to submit that one of the witnesses of the said will contains the parentage written as 'late' Shiv Mangal Singh. while on the day of the will he was very much alive and died much later which also proves that on the alleged day there was no such will executed and the forgery is glaringly apparent on the face of record. Regarding the pendency of probate proceeding it has been submitted that if a particular document is forged it naturally can be cancelled or annulled only by the competent civil court and, therefore, the proceedings in the civil court have got to be resorted to for that purpose. So far as the law with regard to maintainability of criminal prosecution in regard to matters which also disclose civil liability is concerned, the same has been well settled by a catena of Apex Court's decisions. In many of the disputes the facts and circumstances are such that the matter gives rise to civil and the criminal liabilities both. The matters with regard to civil liability are decided on the basis of preponderance of probability while the matters relating to the criminal liability are to be decided on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Both of the proceedings can go on against an accused simultaneously and he can be held liable for both the liabilities. The criminal prosecution and the proceedings with regard to civil liability of the same accused are not mutually exclusive to each other. The criminal prosecution should not necessarily wait till the decision of the civil court.

Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.

A perusal of record of the present case shows that the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Allegation is that the wife of the opposite party no. 2 namely Asha Lata Sharma (since deceased) was owner of the house in dispute. She died on 23.5.2013 and thereafter being her husband as well as only legal heir, the opposite party no. 2 became owner of the said house. Allegation is that the applicant with the aid of other co-accused persons had manipulated a forged will deed of late Asha Lata Sharma and had claimed ownership over the said house. As per the F.I.R. the alleged Will Deed on the basis of which the applicant was claiming his rights, was executed on 02.5.2013 in Kanpur whereas in fact on that date Asha Lata Sharma was in Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon in connection with her treatment. Allegation in the F.I.R. is that on the date of execution of alleged Will Deed the wife of the opposite party no. 2 was not present in Kanpur but the applicant had forged her signature and got the aforesaid Will prepared in his favour. Several other illegalities and anomalous features have also been mentioned in the F.I.R. showing the alleged Will in favour of the applicant of being a forged document. During investigation the investigating officer had recorded the statement of the first informant who had fully supported the prosecution version. He had also given treatment papers as well as train ticket of Asha Lata Sharma to the Investigating Officer showing her presence at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon on 2.5.2013. The said documents are the part of case diary and are annexed as annexure no. 8 to the present application. In the alleged Will Deed which was executed in favour of the applicant, witnesses of margin are mentioned as Ravindra Bhushan Singh son of late Shiv Mangal Singh and Brahma Dutt Mishra but on that date i.e. on 2.5.2013  father of Ravindra Bhushan Singh namely Dr. Shiv Mangal Singh was quite alive. It is also relevant to note that some of the witnesses and executor of the Will have given conflicting statement/affidavits in connection with the present case regarding their presence at the time of execution of alleged Will Deed. Therefore, it cannot be said at all that there is no evidence against the applicant. It is also well settled law that mere pendency of a civil litigation (i.e. a probate case as is in the present case) does not vitiate criminal proceedings and does not absolve the accused from his criminal liability and both proceedings can run concurrently.

In the light of what has been discussed above, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal proceedings should be quashed in the wake of pendency of probate proceeding appears to be untenable. This Court also does not see any good reason to stay these proceedings as the commission of criminal offences is unmistakably apparent on the face of record.

Even the other submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.