The magistrate's discretion in directing police investigations under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, aligning with the facts of the case and ensuring that allegations are serious enough to warrant such action.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed, seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 21^st October 2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05, South-East, Saket District Courts, New Delhi in Crl. Revision No. 247/2024 titled “ Mrs. Asha Bhatia versus State and Ors. ”

Factual Background:

2. Petitioner’s case is that her mother late Smt. Swaran Kaur Bhatia, executed a Will dated 05^th October 2021 in her favour in respect of properties bearing Nos. A-19 & A-49, Defence Colony, New Delhi. She expired on 31^st December 2021. The petitioner applied for mutation of property No. A-49 in her favour, but she could not get it done as respondent No. 2 Amarjeet Singh propounded a Will dated 27^th September 2017 of late Smt. Swaran Kaur Bhatia, allegedly executed in his favour. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a probate petition bearing No. PC-51/2022 before the court of learned Principal & District Judge, South-East District for grant of Probate/Letter of Administration in respect of Will dated 05^th October 2021, executed in her favour. The petitioner later came to know that Amarjeet Singh had got an FIR No. 120/2023, under Section 420 /468/471/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“ IPC ”] registered against her at Police Station Defence Colony, alleging forgery of Will dated 05^th October 2021. The said case is still under investigation.

3. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 Ms. Ravinder Kaur, who is the wife of Amarjeet Singh (Respondent No. 2) propounded a Will dated 18^th November 2021, allegedly executed by late Smt. Swaran Kaur Bhatia in respect of her other property bearing No. A-49, Defence Colony. Such Will, according to petitioner, is forged and fabricated to overcome the precedence of petitioner’s Will, being later in time.

4. Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr. PC”] against both the respondents along with an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC for registration of FIR under the relevant provisions of IPC . Vide order dated 02^nd April 2024, the application filed by the petitioner under (3) Cr. PC was dismissed. However, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate [“MM”] took cognizance and granted opportunity to the petitioner to prove her case by leading evidence.

5. Petitioner preferred revision against the said order before the learned Sessions Court. Vide order dated 21^st October 2024, the said revision came to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the orders dated 02^nd April 2024 and 21^st October 2024.

Submissions made on behalf of the petitioner:

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 deliberately suppressed material facts while initiating proceedings under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC, particularly the pendency and contest of the probate petition. It was argued that although objections had already been filed by Respondent No. 2 in the probate proceedings, the same were not disclosed to the Magistrate while seeking registration of an FIR against the Petitioner. It was further submitted that such suppression vitiates the entire criminal process initiated at the behest of the Respondents. On this ground alone, the registration of the FIR against the Petitioner was stated to be a clear abuse of the process of law.

7. It was further submitted that the Petitioner is a 69-year-old woman and the absolute owner, being the rightful heir to her deceased mother, of the property in question, who had sought to sell the same through a lawful agreement to sell. Pursuant thereto, a public notice was i