Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.: - The petitioner has filed the instant petition while invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of FIR No. 13 dated 26.01.2012 (Annexure P4) registered at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga for offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC) and proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that Bhajan Singh, father of the petitioner, was married with Bhupinder Kaur and out of this wedlock two children, i.e., the petitioner and his sister Daljit Kaur were born. The mother of the petitioner unfortunately died and his sister was married and leading a happy married life. The father of the petitioner was residing with the petitioner and passed away on 09.07.2011. The petitioner, produced the death certificate of his father, got the land mutated in his name. Ravinderjit Kaur, respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit in the Court at Moga, in which, the mutation sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was challenged by claiming herself to be the widow of Bhajan Singh, father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner never performed marriage with respondent No. 2. The instant FIR was lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2 during pendency of civil suit with a view to put pressure upon the petitioner to succumb to the illegal demand of respondent No. 2 to inherit 1/3rd share in the property left behind by deceased Bhajan Singh. It is argued with vehemence that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as correct on its face value, the same do not constitute offence under Section 415 IPC punishable under Section 420 thereof. It is further argued that the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 are nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law, therefore, liable to be quashed.

3. Counsel for respondent No. 2, on the contrary, contends that the petitioner was fully aware that after death of first wife of Bhajan Singh, he performed marriage with respondent No. 2 in 2004 and since then, Bhajan Singh and respondent No. 2 had been residing as husband and wife. Bhajan Singh during his life time dis-inherited the petitioner as he was indulged in bad habits and executed a will dated 09.11.2010 in favour of respondent No. 2 whereby he bequeathed his entire property in her favour in lieu of services rendered by her to said Bhajan Singh. It is argued with vehemence that the petitioner filed a false affidavit before the concerned revenue authority to allege that he is the sole heir of the deceased and got sanctioned mutation thereby dis-entitling the complainant of her right to 1/3rd share in the property left behind by deceased Bhajan Singh. It is further argued that disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioner cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it is for the trial Court to decide culpability of the petitioner after adducing evidence by the parties.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. The petitioner is, admittedly, the son of deceased Bhajan Singh who passed away in July 2011. The petitioner approached the concerned revenue authority for sanctioning of mutation in regard to estate left behind by deceased Bhajan Singh by claiming himself to be the sole legal heir of said Bhajan Singh. A due consideration of the allegations set up in the FIR as well as submissions made by counsel for respondent No. 2 makes it evident that the only grievance of respondent No. 2 is that the petitioner wrongly and illegally claimed himself to be the sole heir of deceased Bhajan Singh by concealing the fact that said Bhajan Singh also left behind respondent No. 2 as his legal heir being his widow and got sanctioned mutation in his name.

6. Now the question arises, whether the act of the petitioner in claiming himself to be the sole heir of the deceased and getting mutation sanctioned in his favour would constitute offence under Section 415 IPC punish