IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdictional limitation on the exercise of power under Section 309 of the CrPC by the learned ASJ in revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J. - The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenges the judgment dated 27.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-04 and Special Judge (NDPS), SouthEast, Saket in CR No. 59/2012 and 61/2012, whereby the proceedings pending in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East, Saket, arising out of FIR No. 171/2006 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at P.S. C.R. Park (investigated by Crime Branch, EOW) were stayed till the conclusion of proceedings in Probate Case No. 90 of 2003; 386/06 pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:

i. At the instance of the present petitioner, FIR No. 171/2006 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC, was registered at P.S. C.R. Park (investigated by Crime Branch, EOW).

ii. It is the case of the petitioner that his father, late Sh. AC Ghosh had bequeathed the property bearing no. G 1224, C.R. Park, New Delhi by way of a will dated 07.08.1989 and a codicil dated 31.02.1989 in equal proportions to his wife Smt. Usha Ghosh Dastidar and the present petitioner/Sh. Bimalendu Ghosh Dastidar.

iii. It is stated that late Sh. A.C. Ghosh passed away on 16.12.1996 and his wife Smt. Usha Ghosh passed away on 27.05.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother Smt. Usha Ghosh left behind her will dated 12.01.1998 bequeathing her share in the said property in favour of the present petitioner.

iv. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 filed a probate petition in 2003 seeking grant of probate of will dated 10.05.1996 alleged to have been executed by late Sh. AC Ghosh in the Court of the learned District Judge, Tis Hazari. On being served with the notices of the said probate case, the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid forged and fabricated will.

v. That report from GQD was sought and it came on record that the will before the Probate Court was allegedly forged. After investigation in the aforesaid FIR, the chargesheet was filed against respondents no. 2 to 4. (respondents no. 3 and 4 were witnesses to the alleged forged will).

vi. The present respondents 2 to 4 filed a petition, i.e., CRL.MC. 3234/2007, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.10.2007.

vii. Subsequently, an application under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondents before the Court of learned ACMM seeking stay of proceedings till the decision of the Civil Court in the Probate Case. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2009.

viii. The aforesaid order dated 31.08.2009 was challenged by respondents no. 2 to 4 before this Court vide CRL.M.C. 3638/2009. The said petition was withdrawn with permission to file an appropriate application before learned Session Court vide order 23.10.2009. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, a revision petition against the order dated 31.08.2009 was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.02.2010 holding that the trial would continue but the learned Trial Court would not pass a final order till the decision of the Probate Case.

ix. Respondent no.4 herein challenged the said order dated 18.02.2010 in CRL.M.C. 29/2010 and sought quashing of FIR and the chargesheet and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order 08.01.2010.

x. The aforesaid order 18.02.2010 passed by learned ASJ in the revision petition challenging the order dated 31.08.2009 dismissing the application under Section 309 of the CrPC, was challenged by respondent no.2 herein vide CRL.M.C. 837/2010, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

xi. The learned Trial court, after hearing arguments directed framing of charges vide order dated 05.02.2011 and formal charges were framed on 18.02.2011 under Sections