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 Will. In order to frustrate the lawful claims of Deepa, Babitha and others fabricated a Will, as if Rajendran had written it on 02.08.2008 revoking the earlier Will dated 31.01.2004. On a complaint lodged by Deepa, the police registered a case and after investigation, Final Report against four persons, including Babitha for the aforesaid offences has been filed, which Babitha is seeking to quash.

3. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for Babitha submitted that, the genuineness of the impugned Will dated 02.08.2008 should have to be tested only by a civil Court and not in the criminal prosecution. He further submitted that Babitha was not in India on 02.08.2008 when the alleged Will is said to have been executed by Rajendran and therefore, the criminal prosecution against her is a sheer abuse of process of law. The last contention of Mr.V.Raghavachari is that, during the course of investigation, the police had obtained specimen handwritings and signatures from Bapitha for comparison, which is illegal and the Handwriting Examiners report based on such signatures and writings is not admissible in law, in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sapan Haldar and another vs. State [2012 VIII AD (Delhi) 533].

4. This Court carefully perused the Final Report and the accompanying documents. Here, the allegation against Babitha and others is that, they had fabricated the Will dated 02.08.2008 after 19.05.2009 i.e., after the death of Rajendran, as if Rajendran had executed the Will on 02.08.2008. The impugned Will has been scribed on a Rs.20/- non judicial stamp paper, which prima facie shows that it was purchased on 15.07.2008, but Police investigation reveals that the said stamp paper itself was released by the Treasury only on 07.08.2008. Therefore, the impugned Will could never have been scribed on the said non-judicial stamp paper on 02.08.2008, since the very stamp paper was released by the Treasury only on 07.08.2008. Police investigation also shows that Babitha came to India after her father's death and she was shown the Will dated 31.01.2004. Much later she produced the impugned Will which aroused suspicion in Deepa's mind.Thus there are sufficient materials for the prosecution to proceed against Babitha and others for the said offences. When there are sufficient materials on record collected by the prosecution to show that the impugned Will has been prepared by Babitha and other accused after the death of Rajendran, the argument that the genuineness of the Will should be tested only in probate proceedings, deserves to be rejected.

5. The last argument advanced by Mr.V.Raghavachari relying upon the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court requires to be dealt with exhaustively. It may be relevant to state here t