JUDGMENT :

Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J.

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR No. 0289/2019 dated 29.05.2019 registered at Police Station Chitrakoot, District Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of I.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant/respondent No. 2 has filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against him in the Court of learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur wherein, in his written statement filed on 20.08.2018, he has specifically averred that Late Shri Radheshyam Badya, their father, has executed a Will dated 14.04.2016 of the house in question in his favour. He submitted that thereafter, the complainant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint wherein he has specifically averred that five documents including the Will in question, were forged by the petitioner (defendant No. 2), his wife and their late father. He, therefore, submitted that thereby the complainant has admitted that the Will was executed by their late father. Learned counsel submitted that thereafter with much delay, the FIR came to be lodged on 29.05.2019 that too on the basis of opinion of private handwriting expert which could not be the basis of the allegations contained therein. Relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.: (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 794, Mukul Agarwal & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.: (2020) 3 SCC 402, Mohini Hemant Jadia vs. Hemant Ghanshyamlal Jadia & Ors.: (2002) 9 SCC 767 and Sardool Singh & Anr. vs. Smt. Nasib Kaur: 1987 (Supp) SCC 146, learned counsel submitted that since the civil Court is already seized of the matter wherein the question of genuineness of the Will is to be examined, the FIR in question is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence and hence, the same cannot be quashed by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. They submitted that the allegations therein are based not only on the opinion of the private handwriting expert; but, travel beyond that also. With regard to the averments made in the application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, learned counsel for the complainant contended that there are specific allegations therein as to preparation of forged and fabricated Will by the petitioner in collusion with his wife. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.: (2005) 4 SCC 370, Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & Anr. vs. State (Delhi Administration) & Anr.: (2009) 5 SCC 528, Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.: 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 171 and K. Jagdish vs. Udaya Kumar G.S. & Anr. AIR 2020 SC 936 in support of his submissions that civil as well as criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously and in case of any conflict, the criminal proceedings will have primacy over the civil proceedings.

4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

5. A bare reading of the FIR wherein there are allegations against the petitioner of forging and fabricating a Will purportedly executed by their father, discloses commission of cognizable offence. It also reveals that besides the allegation that the private handwriting expert has opined signature of their father on the Will in question to be forged, there is allegation of interpolation in the documents as well.

6. The scope of quashing the criminal proceeding at the threshold, has succinctly been laid down in the following cases:

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2008 SCC 2781, held