The genuineness of a document and the necessity for investigation are determined by the investigating agency, and a bare perusal of the report can disclose a cognizable offense requiring investigation.

ORDER

1. By way of this instant misc. petition, challenge has been made to the registration of the FIR impugned. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are highly improbable and are preposterous; on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach on a conclusion that alleged offence might have been committed. He submits that as per the contents of the FIR, deceased Smt. Kesari Devi executed a will infavour of Smt. Manju Devi on 21.10.2019 before the Registrar Dimapur, Nagaland. The fact regarding her presence and genuineness of the document has been verified by the Office of Registrar Dimapur, Nagaland as well as by the Assistant Settlement Officer who deals with the land related matters. Counsel further submits that simply on the ground of variation in signature it cannot be presumed that signature appended on will in question is a forged one. He submits that indisputably since 2012, the old lady Smt. Kesari Devi who happens to be mother in law of the beneficiary Manju was residing at her place Dimapur. The beneficiary is not a stranger person rather she is daughter-in-law of the executor of the will. He further submits that by the lapse of time, variance can occur in signature of the same party and therefore the same cannot be a ground to infer that the signature on the will is forged. As a matter of fact, a suit for cancellation of will and injunction had been submitted before the Civil Court prior to the lodging of the FIR, thus the genuineness of the document would definitely be a subject matter of that civil court where after framing issues in this aspect, adducing evidence and on the basis of preponderance of probability; the final adjudication regarding genuineness of the will shall be made by the civil Judge. The another aspect of the case as shown by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the will in question has been submitted with the Civil Court, Dimapur, Nagaland where probate proceeding has been undertaken. The probate court after making incisive probe in the matter has granted probate in favour of the petitioners thus further probe for the same document by a police officer would not be required and thus continuance of the investigation in the FIR impugned would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. He further submits that there is presumption under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act regarding genuineness of the document as well of the judgment of the probate court. He places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel & Anr. versus State of Gujarat & Anr. (2020) 3 SCC 794 in Criminal Appeal No. 251-252 of 2020 decided on 10.02.2020, Sadar AM Khan versus State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home Department and Anr. (2020) 12 SCC 51 in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 and The Commissioner of Police & Ors. versus Devender Anand & Ors. In Criminal Appeal No. 834/2017 decided on 08.08.2019 and Paramjeet Batra versus State of Uttrakhand and Ors. In Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2012 decided on 14.12.2012.

2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners. At the outset it is submitted that while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in hearing the plea of quashing of FIR, the only thing which is to be seen by the Court is whether the content of the FIR discloses or not the commission of cognizable offence or whether the matter requires investigation or not. They further submit that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals commission of a cognizable offence more particularly regarding making a false document and forgery as defined under Section 463 and 464 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the complainant drew attention of this Court towards some registered documents, genuineness of which has not been disputed; which were executed by the deceased Kesari Devi in favour of several p