The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal prosecution cannot be initiated in a purely civil dispute where the genuineness of a Will is sub judice.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. By virtue of the above three captioned petitions, the petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 to quash the summoning order dated 1st April, 2013 passed against the petitioners by Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket District Courts in Criminal Complaint No. 547/2/12.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the respondent no.2 –R. Vijaynandan Reddy filed a criminal complaint against the four petitioners herein namely

a. Rama Devi (accused no.1),

b. Krishna Priya (accused no.2),

c. Pradeep Dhingra (accused no.3) and

d. Shalini Dhingra (accused no.4)

under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket on 15.02.2012 alleging that Rama Devi in connivance with Smt. Shalini Dhingra forged a Will dated 14.02.1998 and sold the property bearing no.C-72, Freedom Fighters Cultural Centre, at Neb Sarai, Saket, New Delhi measuring 400 square yards (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said property’) .

3. As per the complaint, the said property was jointly owned by the respondent no.2- R. Vijaynandan Reddy, an advocate and his late grandfather Shri. R. Venkata Reddy, who was a freedom fighter. The father of the respondent no.2 Shri. R. Venugopal Reddy raised a house on the said plot. It is alleged in the complaint that Rama Devi petitioner/accused no.1 had illicit relations with the father of the respondent no.2 and Krishna Priya petitioner/accused no.2 is the daughter of Rama Devi petitioner/accused no.1. The said property was allotted to the respondent no.2/complainant on 21.12.1986. On 18.08.1995, the respondent no.2/complainant’s father Shri R. Venugopal Reddy made a will bequeathing all his property including the said property in the name of respondent no.2/complainant. On 24.03.1999, a notice under section 126 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the name of respondent no.2 and his grandfather.

4. It is further alleged that the petitioner/accused no.1 Rama Devi claims herself to be the wife of father of respondent no.2 and she illegally occupied the said property. After the death of the father of respondent no.2 i.e. Shri R. Venugopal Reddy on 15.08.2002, when respondent no.2 visited the property in September 2002, he found Smt. Rita Sachdeva was staying as a tenant of petitioner/accused no.3 Pradeep Dhingra. Accused no.3 Pradeep Dhingra claims to have purchased the said property from accused no.1 and 2 namely Rama Devi and Krishna Priya.

5. It is alleged in the complaint that, Rama Devi and her daughter Krishna Priya (accused no. 1 and 2) made a fabricated Will dated 14.02.1998 purported to be executed by the father of respondent no.2 i.e. Shri R. Venugopal Reddy in favour of Rama Devi and Krishna Priya. Thereafter, on the basis of the forged Will dated 14.02.1998, accused no.1 and no.2 i.e. Rama Devi and Krishna Priya sold the said property to Pradeep Dhingra and Shalini Dhingra (accused no. 3 and 4) through Will, General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney all executed on 25.01.2003. In addition to that, they also entered into an agreement to sell with accused no.3 and 4 i.e. Pradeep Dhingra and Shalini Dhingra on 29.01.2003.

6. It is stated in the complaint that the respondent no.2 obtained a letter of administration no. C.A. 48 of 2003, dated 04.08.2003 from High Court of Andhra Pradesh to administer and to receive the assets/amount left in the account of Late R. Venugopal Reddy within the state of Andhra Pradesh, i.e. Rs.54,991/- being the Bank Deposit and Income Tax Refund amount. This letter of administration was granted only in favour of the respondent no.2/complainant. The respondent no.2 had lodged complaint on 05.06.2003 with SHO, P.S. Mehrauli. The respondent no.2 issued a legal notice on 05.05.2005 to Pradeep Dhingra. Reply to the legal notice was sent on 14.05.2005, thereby informing the factum of purc