Amar Nath and Another vs Atma Ram

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The Petitioners are seeking quashing of criminal complaint No. 81 of 1998 filed by Respondent Atma Ram against them and setting aside of the order dated 16.3.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, whereby they have been summoned for offences under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.

The subject-matter of the complaint in question is a Will dated 25.11.1965 purported to have been executed and thumb-marked by Raja Ram. According to the Respondent/complainant, the Will in question was a forged and fabricated document.

In preliminary evidence the complainant examined himself as CW-1 besides Kanwal Pal, Peon, Tehsil Officer as CW-2, Devender Parsad Document Expert as CW-3 and Mihan Singh as CW-4. After perusing the preliminary evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate summoned the Petitioners as mentioned above, as accused.

The controversy regarding the Will in question was upheld by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Karnal on 28.11.1969. In para 11 of the said judgment, it was held as under:

The Will Ex. D-1 is dated 25.1.1965. A few days before the death of Raja Ram this was scribed by Shame Singh DW-2, who is a very qualified man and is the son of Nathu Defendant. He stated that Raja Ram executed the Will in suit with his free volition and without any pressure. The Will is attested by Ramji Lal DW-1 and Sulekh Chand DW-2, both of whom are Lamberdars of their respective villages. I have not been able to find anything to disbelieve their testimony. Molu Ram PW-4 admitted that Ramji Lal had no dispute with Raja Ram. Pirthi Singh PW-2 also stated that Ramji Lal and Sulekh Chand were on visiting terms with Raja Ram. I have, thus, little doubt about the due execution of validity of the Will and it was most natural in the circumstances of the case....

The finding regarding validity of Will was upheld by Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 1.8.1970. Position remained the same in the High Court when RSA No. 1342 of 1970 was decided on 13.8.1981. In fact, no argument was raised that the execution of the Will in favour of Amar Nath was not duly proved. Accordingly, the finding of the trial Court and the Appellate Court that Raja Ram had executed the Will in favour of Amar Nath was upheld. The finding of the High Court is reproduced hereinbelow:

It deserves mention that no argument was raised before me on behalf of the Respondent that the execution of the Will in favour of Amar Nath is not duly proved. Accordingly, the finding of the Courts below that Raja Ram had executed the Will in favour of Amar Nath is upheld.

The matter was thereafter taken to the Hon''ble Supreme Court by the complainant by filing SLP No. 10509 of 1981 which after special leave was granted, was treated as Civil Appeal No. 1043 of 1982. The appeal was finally dismissed on 20.11.1991.

Once the validity of the Will in question has been upheld by the Court and that too up to the highest level, it does not lie in mouth of the complainant/Respondent to initiate criminal proceedings against the Petitioners that they have forged the same. In fact, finding of fact by the Civil Court in respect of the validity of the Will is binding on the criminal court and thus, the complaint in question is liable to be quashed.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there were allegations regarding the forgery of Will. These allegations were to be established independently in the criminal Court, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Court. In this regard, reliance has been placed on

There is no dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in the aforementioned ruling. However, in that case, the civil proceedings were still pending and yet to be finally decided by the Court. In the present case, the dispute regarding validity of Will has finally been settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The final conclusion arrived at by the civil Court in regard to the Will in question, is that the same was genuine and not a forged and fabricated document. In this Court quashed the complaint in view of the finding of the civil Court by observing that the matter could not be allowed to be adjudicated upon all over again in the criminal proceedings.

In view of the above, the present petition is accepted. Criminal complaint No. 81 of 1998 (Annexure P-15) filed by complainant/Respondent on 25.2.1995 is quashed and the order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra on 16.3.2001 while summoning the Petitioners under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC is set aside.