1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate [crl.side] appearing for the State.

2. A seminal issue arises for adjudication in this quash proceedings.

[a] Babitha Surendran [3rd accused], who is the petitioner before this Court, is seeking to quash the prosecution in C.C.No.789 of 2010 for offences under Sections 417, 420, 467, 471, 506(i) r/w 34 IPC. Suji Deepa [de facto complainant] and Babitha are blood sisters, born to Rajendran, who died on 19.05.2009. The allegations in the Final Report is that, Babitha and three others had fabricated a Will sometime after 19.05.2009 in Chennai, as if Rajendran had executed the same on 02.08.2008, bequeathing the properties under the Will equally to Deepa and Babitha. It is Deepa's case that her father had executed a Will dated 31.01.2004, by which the entire property was bequeathed to her exclusively leaving out Babitha.

[b] The Will dated 31.01.2004 was left in the custody of one Dr.Balachandran, a close relative and after the death of Rajendran on 19.05.2009, the Will was made public and Bapitha was visibly upset that she has been left out in the W