Pendency Of Probate Proceedings No Bar To FIR Alleging Forgery Of Registered Will: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR alleging forgery of a registered Will, holding that the pendency of probate proceedings examining the Will's validity does not bar a parallel criminal investigation into allegations of fabrication and use of forged documents.

A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in her order, observed thus:

"Forgery, fabrication of documents and their use for wrongful gain are therefore, not mere matters of civil invalidity but constitute independent offences under the criminal law. Hence, civil adjudication regarding the validity of a document cannot preclude criminal prosecution where the ingredients of offences (such as forgery herein) are prima facie disclosed, as the two remedies differ in their objective, scope and standard of proof".

“Elaborating on the distinction between the two proceedings, the Court noted: "While in the probate proceedings, the genuineness of the Will has to be tested on the anvil of Section 68 Indian Succession Act, in accordance with Section 65 Indian evidence Act, and even if signatures are found to be genuine, it may still be invalidated; the allegations of forgery and use of a forged document as genuine, are distinct offences under the Penal Code and if established, attract penal consequences independent of the outcome of the probate proceedings".

The bench thus dismissed the writ petition filed by Babita Chopra, who had challenged a forgery FIR registered pursuant to an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC on a complaint filed by her nephew, Nitesh Khanna, alleging that the Will executed by his late father was forged.

The dispute pertained to the estate of Late Sh. Narender Kishore Khanna. The Will dated April 29, 2011, purportedly bequeathed the testator's movable and immovable properties in favour of his mother and sister (the Petitioner), excluding his wife and son (Respondent No. 2).

After the testator's death in 2013, probate proceedings were initiated in 2014 and remain pending before the High Court, with the genuineness of the Will in dispute.

During this time, the respondent no. 2/complainant obtained a private handwriting expert's opinion alleging a mismatch of signatures on the Will and approached the Magistrate seeking criminal action. The Court directed the registration of an FIR. Hence, this petition quashing petition was moved.

Rejecting the challenge, the High Court reiterated that civil and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres and are governed by different standards of proof.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgments in Kamaladevi Agarwal and Neeharika Infrastructure, holding that the High Court should not stifle legitimate investigation at the threshold.

The Court also emphasised that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the High Court cannot assess the reliability or correctness of evidence such as a handwriting expert's report, nor can it conduct a mini-trial to determine whether the Will is genuine or forged.

“Those issues are matters of investigation to be tested during the course of criminal investigation…,” it said.

As such, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case title: Babita Chopra v. State

Appearance: Mr. Vineet Mehta and Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (CRL) with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Advocates for the State

Case no.: W.P. CRL. 2202/2024

Click here to read order