the property in favour of A2. The entire allegations in the final report as well as the statements given by the witnesses is against A1 for having created a forged Will and against A3 and A4, who have signed as attesting witnesses in the Will. This petitioner has been added as an accused only on the ground that the settlement deed dated 28.12.2001 bearing document No.323/2001, has been executed in his favour by A1. In order to substantiate the addition of this petitioner as accused, the prosecution ought to have come up with the case of conspiracy against the petitioner and only then, this petitioner can be roped in as an accused person. The prosecution has not even investigated this case on the angle of conspiracy. Therefore, the mere execution of the settlement deed by A1 with regard to a portion of the property in favour of A2, does not automatically make out an offence against A2. In this case, it is also pertinent to note that the settlement deed has subsequently been cancelled by A1 on 17.03.2014. This petitioner had no role to play either at the time of execution of settlement deed or at the time of the cancellation of settlement deed. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, there are absolutely no materials to sustain the case of the prosecution, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
