IMPORTANT POINT
Civil and criminal proceedings can coexist; criminality in FIR justifies cognizance despite ongoing civil disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Upman, J.

1. By way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi in Criminal Revision No. 119/2021 whereby the learned revisional court partly allowed the revision to the extent of summoning of the accused petitioners by bailable warrants instead of non-bailable warrants and affirmed the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi in Case No. 2035/2021, taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.09.2017, the complainant Avinash Chandra Chandna, sent a complaint by post to the SHO PS Kotwali, Bundi alleging inter alia that out of the wedlock of Maharaja Bahadur Singhji and Smt. Gulab Kumari, one son Yuvraj Ranjeet Singh and one daughter Mahendra Kumari were born. Bahadur Singhji expired on 24.11.1977 and Ranjeet Singh inherited the legacy. Smt. Gulab Kumariji also passed away on 29.06.1981. It was mentioned in the complaint that out of the wedlock of Ranjeet Singh and his spouse Smt. Durga Kumari, no child was born. Mahendra Kumari Ji was married to Yuvraj Pratap Singhji, Alwar in the year 1962 and they gave birth to Bhanwar Jitendra Singh and Minakshi Kumari. Smt. Mahendra Kumari filed a suit of partition under Order 7, Rule 1 CPC in Bundi District Court and during pendency thereof, she expired and Jitendra Singh, being her legal heir led her case. In the said suit (No. 241/03), ex-parte preliminary decree was passed and 50% of the subject property was declared in favour of Jitendra Singh & 50% was declared in favour of Ranjeet Singhji. It was averred in the report that since the subject property was in actual possession of Shri Ranjeet Singh, the learned civil court, by way of permanent injunction, restrained Shri Ranjeet Singhji to sell, transfer or alienate the suit property till passing of final decree.

3. The complainant/first informant alleged that he being the close and family friend of Ranjeet Singh Ji, in pursuance of the order dated 31.11.2005 passed in Case No. 241/2003 by ADJ, Fast Track No. 4, Jaipur, Ranjeet Singhji executed a Will in his favour on 30.03.2009 which was also got registered before Sub-Registrar No. VII, New Delhi. Shri Ranjeet Singh expired on 07.01.2010. It was alleged in the report that Jitendra Singh wanted to illegally usurp the entire property of Bundi estate and with this view, he hatched a conspiracy and by making false and forged signature of Shri Ranjeet Singh, made a forged trust deed (Sewayatnama/Arpan-nama) dated 08.05.2008 to the effect that Shri Ranjeet Singh has given all his property in the name of his Kuldevi Ashapura Mataji while making Jitendra Singh and Shrinath Ji as trustees. It was alleged that on the basis of this forged and fabricated document, Shrinath Singh also filed a suit (No. 88/2010) under Order 7, Rule 1 CPC for declaring him trustee. It is averred in the complaint that in Testamentary Case (No. 19/2010), instituted by him before Delhi High Court, in connection with the Will executed by Ranjeet Singhji in his favour, Shrinath Singh Hada filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading him in the capacity of trustee of Ashapura Mataji, as party respondent. However, he withdrew the said application without disclosing any specific reason. It was thus alleged in the report that Jitendera Singh, Shrinath Singh and Bijendra Singh wanted to illegally grab and usurp the property of Shri Ranjeet Singh Ji, which was transferred in his favour by Shri Ranjeet Singh by executing a Will. Shri Ranjeet Singh has never given his property in the name of Ashapura Mataji and declared accused persons as trustee of the subject property. He thus, prayed that the veracity and genuineness of the alleged Arpannama dated 08.05.2008 be made and appropriate legal action may be taken against the accused persons.

4. On the basis o