Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
Col. Mandeep Sandhu - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
UT of Chandigarh and another - Respondents - Respondent
CRM-M-41647 of 2018
Decided On : 25-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. R. Kartikeya, Mr. Ranjeet Saini and Mr. Sunny Juneja, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. A.M. Punchhi, PP for UT., Chandigarh.
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

The judgment of the probate Court, declaring the Will to be genuine, is conclusive and binding on all courts, including the Criminal Court.

Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 41 - Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash FIR No.36 dated 09.03.2006, alleging forgery of a Will. The Will was initially dismissed by the Civil Court but later held to be genuine by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the judgment of the probate Court, declaring the Will to be genuine, had attained finality up to the Supreme Court, making the continuation of the FIR proceedings a sheer wastage of time.
Issues: The issue revolved around the binding nature of the Civil Court's judgment on the Criminal Court and the genuineness of the Will.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment of the probate Court, as per Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, is conclusive in civil as well as criminal proceedings, and a final judgment is binding on all courts and authorities.
Final Decision: FIR No.36 dated 09.03.2006 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed by the Court.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer is made to quash FIR No.36 dated 09.03.2006 registered at Police Station Sector-3, Chandigarh under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. One Pawandeep Sandhu had executed a Will dated 14.11.2004 bequeathing his estate in favour of his mother Smt. Kuldeep Kaur. The Will was witnessed by Lt. Col. Jasdeep Sandhu and Banta Singh. Said Pawandeep Sandhu died on 18.01.2005. Petitioner Col. Mandeep Sandhu is the brother; whereas Smt. Ritu Grewal is sister of Pawandeep Sandhu. Respondent No.2- Rajeshwari is the alleged wife of Pawandeep Sandhu.

3. Respondent No.2 – Rajeshwari got registered FIR No.36 dated 09.03.2006 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 3 Chandigarh against petitioner, his mother Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, sister Smt. Ritu Grewal and two attesting witnesses of the Will, alleging the forgery of the Will. On the other hand, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur filed probate case bearing No.RT-1/16.06.2009/27.03.2006 – CIS/PROB-000002/2013 before learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on the basis of abovesaid Will dated 14.11.2004, wherein respondent No.2 was also impleaded as a party. The probate case was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Mohali on 31.03.2015 by holding that Will is proved but the same was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. However, FAO No.5306 of 2015 (O&M) filed by Smt. Kuldeep Kaur was allowed by this High Court vide order dated 13.01.2022 (Annexure P.12) and the Will was held to be genuine. Aggrieved by the said order, Rajeshwari filed Special Leave Petition No.6452 of 2022 but the same was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.04.2022 vide Annexure P.13. The review petitions filed by Rajeshwari as well as respondent No.1 – UT, Chandigarh were also dismissed on 02.11.2022 and 12.12.2022 (Annexure P.14 and Annexure P.16 respectively).

4. Petitioner has prayed for quashing FIR No.36 dated 09.03.2006 in view of the finding returned by the Civil Court. On the other hand, contention of the respondents is that the findings of the Civil Court are not binding on the Criminal Court and that matter is required to be investigated qua the genuineness of the Will, as the said Will is alleged by the complainant of the FIR i.e. Respondent No.2 Rajeshwari to be a forged document.

5. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record.

6. Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:-

“41. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction.––A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.

Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof ––

that any legal character which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation;

that any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person;

that any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease;

and that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property.”

7. A bare perusal of the above-said provision reveals that the final judgment, order or decree of the competent Court in exercise of the probate jurisdiction is con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document