The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the accused to be the maker of the false document and the need for strong suspicion at the initial stage to frame charges. The judgment also emphasized the limitations of suspicion in place of legal proof and the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the court's process.

JUDGMENT :

Prithviraj K Chavan, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally with the consent of Mr. M. Teles, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He waives notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the learned Special Judge on 26.11.2018 by which learned Judge has confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in case no.IPC/202/2012/C directing a charge to be framed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. One Mr. Cesar Rego Fernandes filed a complaint before the Police attached to Panaji Police Station against the petitioner and her husband including six others that from 9.8.2009 to 22.8.2009 all the accused in furtherance of their common intention impersonated one deceased Ms. Luiza Maria D'souza after her death by preparing a forged Will dated 9.8.2002 and thereby prepared a Gift Deed dated 5.1.2009 in order to illegally grab and acquire and dispose of the property surveyed under No.244/02 at Village Kalapur which partly belonged to the complainant and his relatives.

5. The Complainant Contend that deceased Luiza was the daughter of late Gabriel D'Souza. She expired on 25.7.2002 at Goa Medical College hospital Bambolim. The Will which came to be executed on 9.8.2002 is a forged document. Complaint reveals that accused no.1 i.e. husband of the petitioner is the son of sister of said Luiza who had purportedly bequeathed survey no.242/2 by the aforesaid Will. Luiza had never adopted accused no.1 nor there is any deed of adoption executed by Luiza. Complainant states that accused no.1 who is originally from Taleigao used to sometimes stay in the mundkarial house amongst others which has now been demolished by accused nos.1 and 2 and a big bungalow is coming up on the demolished site by encroaching upon the adjoining land estimated to be around 35 lakhs. Complaint further reveals that Luiza was admitted in the hospital by accused no.1 on 20.7.2002. She was under medical treatment till her death. She died at the age of 75 years as per medical records. On the basis of aforesaid forged Will accused no.1 executed Gift Deed dated 5.1.2009 in favour of accused no.2 (Petitioner) gifting a plot admeasuring 547 sq. mts of the property surveyed under no. 244/2.

6. The complaint further reveals that said Will has been executed 15 days after the death of Luiza. It is therefore, obvious that somebody else had personated Luiza before the Sub-Registrar. The Complainant suspect one Yessu Dias who had impersonated as Luiza. Yessu Dias appears to be closely connected with accused nos.1 and the petitioner. On the basis of complaint, FIR came to be registered. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed in the Court of JMFC Panaji under Sections referred herein above against the petitioner and her husband.

7. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 29.3.2017 directed a charge to be framed against the petitioner and her husband under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471,420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned Magistrate has gone through the record, especially Medical records and birth certificate of deceased Luiza indicating two different dates. It is observed that accused no.1 is a relative of deceased Luiza who alleged to have executed Will and bequeathed the property in his name. Prima facie, it is observed by learned Magistrate that there is involvement of both the accused in committing the offence with which they are charged. The learned Magistrate has also gone through the statement of the witnesses and therefore, directed framing of charge as above.

8. Challenging the said order by way of revision in the Sessions Court, the petitioner and her husband raised the same grounds, however, the learned Session Judge, Panaji, by the impugned order rejected the revision application.

9. At the outset, the learned C