The High Court quashed FIRs regarding alleged forgery of a Will where the civil suit challenging the Will was pending, citing abuse of process and lis pendens, while directing the civil court to obtain handwriting expert opinion.
FIR registered in Crime No.17 of 2019 quashed; directed Trial Court to get expert opinion on handwriting comparison.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10556 & 12451 of 2019
S.Kiruthigan Lokesh .... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.20525 of 2019
Rakesh Kumaran .... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.23619 of 2019 Vs
In both Crl.O.Ps
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Rajarajan For R1 : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : No appearance
1/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash
the FIR registered in Crime No.17 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent.
The properties are worth about Rs.1.50 Crores. However, it was undervalued for a sale consideration of Rs.20 Lakhs. A4 and A5 were
2/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
the witnesses to this Will and A6 is the Sub Registrar and A7 is the Document Writer. Hence, the complaint.
registered FIR in Crime No.17 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.
would submit that in both the petitions, the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2. They are brothers. The husband of the defacto complainant had executed an unregistered Will and thereby bequeathed the suit property in favour of A2 dated 23.11.2012, i.e., even six months before his death. As per the Will, “A” schedule property was bequeathed in favour of his daughter and “B” schedule property was bequeathed in favour of A2. Even according to the second respondent, both A1 and A2 were grown up in her house. They are taking care of the entire family including the deceased. They are none other than the brother's husband of the second respondent. Due to love and affection, the deceased bequeathed the property in favour of the accused. In fact, the second respondent and her
3/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
daughter challenged the Will in O.S.No.146 of 2017 and subsequent sale
deeds. After a period of two years, the second respondent had lodged a complaint for the very same set of allegations. In fact, pending FIR, the petitioners filed these petitions to quash the FIR.
completed the investigation and filed final report. Therefore, the petitioners filed a copy application and sought for certified copy of the final report. However, it was denied, since the first respondent did not file any final report. That apart, once the alleged Will is subjudice, the prosecution cannot be lodged by the complainant for the very same set of allegations. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following Judgements :
(i) 1987 (Supp) SCC 146 in the case of Sardool Singh and another Vs. Smt.Nasib Kaur.
(ii) Criminal Appeal No.295 of 2022 in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(iii) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67 in the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
4/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
perused the materials available on record.
petitioners are arrayed in both petitions as A1 and A2. Both are brothers. Even according to the second respondent, the petitioners were grown up in the house of the second respondent, even while her husband was alive. They were maintaining the accounts, even after the marriage
5/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
of the first accused, he was only maintaining the accounts of the second
respondent. That apart, the second respondent and her husband had no son. Therefore, they treated them as sons and executed a Will dated 23.11.2012 and thereby bequeathed the said properties in favour of A2. In turn, on the strength of the said Will, the second accused executed a sale deed in favour of A3. A4 and A5 are the witnesses to the alleged Will dated 23.11.2012. A6 is the Sub Registrar. A7 is the Document Writer, who had drafted the sale deed in favour of A3. Admittedly, the second respondent already filed a suit challenging the sale deed executed in favour of A3. The second respondent pleaded that no Will was executed by her husband, while he was alive. When the subject Will was subjudiced in O.S.No.146 of 2017, no prosecution can be lodged contending that the Will is a forged one.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 146 in the case of Sardool Singh and another Vs. Nasib Kaur, this Court held that the Civil Court is therefore seized of the question as regards the validity of the Will. The matter is sub judice in
6/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
Civil Courts. At this juncture, the respondent cannot therefore be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that the Will is a forged one.
Usha Chakraborty & Anr Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr, which is held as follows :
9. The materials on record pertaining to the said pleadings instituted in the Civil Suit, produced in this proceeding would reveal that the respondent was in fact ousted from the membership of the trust. In the counter
7/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
affidavit filed in this proceeding, the respondent has virtually admitted the pendency of the suit filed against his removal from the post of Secretary and the trusteeship and its pendency. The factum of passing of adverse orders in the interlocutory applications in the said Civil Suit as also the prima facie finding and conclusion arrived at by the Civil Court that the respondent stands removed from the post of Secretary and also from the trusteeship are also not disputed therein. Then, the question is why would the respondent conceal those relevant aspects? The indisputable and undisputed facts (admitted in the counter affidavit by the respondent) would reveal the existence of the civil dispute on removal of the respondent from the post of Secretary of the school as also from the trusteeship Obviously, it can only be taken that since the removal from the office of the Secretary and the trusteeship was the causative incident, he concealed the pendency of the cell suit to cover up the civil nature of the dispute.
10. By non-disclosure the respondent has, in troth, concealed the existence of a pending civil suit between him and the appellants herein before a competent Civil Court which obviously is the causative incident for the respondents allegation of perpetration of the aforesaid offences against the appellants. We will deal with it further and also its impact a little later. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in order to cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same the petition filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences. In other words, if such allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged. As noticed herein before, the respondent alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384,
8/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
406, 425, 467, 488, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. A bare perusal of the said allegation and the Ingredients to attract them, as adverted to herein before would reveal that the allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute we alleged offences. There is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the appellants herein had caused hurt on the respondent so also, they did not reveal a case that appellants had intentionally put the respondent in fear of injury either to himself o another or by putting him under such fear or injury, dishonestly induced him to deliver any property or valuable security. The same is the position with respect to the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120 B, IPC. The ingredients to attract the alleged offence referred to herein before and the nature of the allegations contained in the application filed by the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear that the respondent had failed to make specific allegation against the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue. In such circumstance when the respondent had already resorted to the available civil remedy and it is pending, going by the decision in Paramjit Batra (supra), the High Court would have quashed the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but for the concealment.”
Thus, it is clear that when the subject Will is already sub judiced by the
Civil Court, the institution of the criminal prosecution is nothing but a
clear abuse of process of law. Therefore, the FIR registered in Crime
9/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
No.17 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.
of 2019 on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand allowed. However, the Trial Court in O.S.No.146 of 2017 is directed to get expert opinion by comparing the original Will dated 23.11.2012, which was produced by the petitioner with the admitted signature of the deceased husband of the second respondent. On receipt of the said report, the second respondent is at liberty to launch the prosecution as against the petitioners and others. Now, the respondent completed the investigation and final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.85 of 2023. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.11.2023
Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp
10/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
To
11/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
Lpp
Crl.O.P.No. 20525 of 2019 and M.P.No.1 of 2019
12/13
Crl.O.P.Nos. 20525 & 23619 of 2019
15.11.2023
13/13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings initiated for alleged forgery of a Will can be quashed while the validity of the Will is sub judice in a civil suit.
Whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies to preclude criminal prosecution alleging forgery during pending civil litigation over the same document.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sardool Singh and another Vs. Smt.Nasib Kaur.Referred¶52
1987 (Supp) SCC 146 · Who else cites this
Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.Referred¶58
Criminal Appeal No.295 of 2022
Usha Chakraborty & Anr Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.Referred¶60
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Kiruthigan Lokesh
Rakesh Kumaran
The State rep. by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal
Saraswathi
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
