The facts in that matter need to be considered. The parties were real brothers and other relatives of one Mukhtar Singh who died on 03.06.1993. The Probate Case was filed in the Court of District Judge, Delhi claiming that a Will was executed by Mukhtar Singh on 20.01.1993. The said proceedings were contested on the ground that the Will was forged. On an Application, the original Will was produced before the Court. Similarly, an Application was moved before the Court under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. requesting the said Court to file a criminal complaint against the Appellants for forging the Will. Though such Application was pending, in May 1996, a criminal complaint was filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 193, 463, 464, 465, 467, 469, 471, 499 and 500 of IPC on the ground that the Will of Mukhtar Singh is a forged and fabricated document. On receipt of the said complaint, the Metropolitan Magistrate observed that the question as to whether the Will was a genuine document or forged one was the issue before the District Court under the Probate proceedings wherein the Application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. was also filed and thus, the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. operates for taking cognizance. The said complaint was accordingly dismissed by the Magistrate. The Criminal Revision filed against such an order was allowed by the Sessions Court on the ground that the bar under Section 195 of IPC would not be applicable as the Page 17 of 30
