The court mandated a fresh investigation into the authenticity of a disputed will, emphasizing the inadequacy of previous investigations and judicial scrutiny.

Order :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through negative factual report, the order passed by learned Magistrate as well as the order passed in revisional jurisdiction.

2. Bereft of the elaborate details minutely stated facts which are necessary for disposal of instant misc. petition are that an FIR came to be lodged alleging inter alia that a will dated 22.11.2011 (30.11.2011) was fabricated falsely by the accused in which after investigation, police filed a negative final report saying that the dispute between siblings was of civil nature. Learned Magistrate concurred with the opinion of the Investigating Officer and the learned Court of Revision did not bother to examine the correctness, legality and the order passed by learned Magistrate.

Hence the instant petition.

3. I have minutely gone through the vasiyat (will) dated 14.11.2011 so also disputed will dated 22.11.2011. The disputed vasiyat (will) was prepared on 22.11.2011 as it is typed at the foot of three pages will, but it was notarized on 30.11.2011. What were the circumstances under which a bed ridden old man wanted to execute a fresh vasiyat (will) after eight days of a registered vasiyat (will) is a serious question creating suspicious circumstances. The fact that the signature appended on the disputed will dated 22.11.2011 has never been investigated by the police officer; neither the signature appended on the disputed will 22.11.2011 were sent to the FSL along with undisputed material so as to ascertain authorship of the signature, nor any concurrent, plausible and cogent evidence has been collected to ensure that the will was a genuine piece of document. Interestingly, at one hand the accused claims that on the strength of the disputed will some lands were mutated deeming it to be genuine and on the other hand they deny the existence of original will with them.

4. In my view, a party cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath. The conduct of the accused is manifestly suspicious. The core question, whether the will was a forged document has not been investigated rather the Investigating Officer has filed the negative final report saying that the dispute was of civil nature. How making of a false document and committing forgery and using the same as genuine can be permitted to hold it as a civil dispute is a serious question.

5. Learned Session Judge was expected to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of the order passed by the learned Magistrate but he did not apply his judicial mind in concurring with the opinion of the Magistrate.

6. In this view of the matter, the instant petition is allowed. Both the orders passed by Court of first instance and passed by Court of Revision are hereby quashed and set aside. The negative final report is also quashed and set aside. The matter is directed to be investigated afresh under 173(8) of the Cr.P.C . The SP Udaipur shall assign the investigation of this case to any other officer for conducting fair and impartial investigation. Endeavors shall be made to ascertain whether the signature appended on the disputed will are genuine or fake. The instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Stay application is also allowed.

7. Record be sent back forthwith.