Amar Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. The applicant, Smt. Achala Dhawan and three others, through this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 29.11.2006, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Meerut in Case No. 8479 of 2006 (Ashima vs. Achala Dhawan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 107 of 2005 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut by which the learned Magistrate rejected the final report and after accepting the protest petition, issued the process to summon the accused-applicants and further prayed to stay the aforesaid proceeding against the applicants.

3. Brief facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this application are that the first informant Smt. Ashima Sikka (opposite party no. 2) lodged the First Information Report to the effect that she is a resident of Meerut and her father Anil Dhawan was an Income Tax Adviser. Anil Dhawan had died on 23.12.2004 and before his death, he executed a Will on 28.8.2003 in which Devendra Kumar and Surendra Singh were witnesses. By this Will, Anil Dhawan had given his half share to informant and other half to Rachita (unmarried sister of informant) of all his assets, which included his movable and immovable property. During the life time of Anil Dhawan, his relations were not good with his wife Smt. Achala and his brother-in-law Pradeep Kapoor. Anil Dhawan had danger to his life from these persons and in this regard, he had also made complaint to Senior Officer, which includes D.I.G. Due to the aforesaid Will dated 28.8.2003, which late Anil Dhawan had executed in favour of informant and her unmarried sister, Smt. Achala Dhawan and her unmarried sister of informant, Rachita were annoyed and they wanted to grab the property and ousted the informant. In this regard, they used to give threats to her. The informant filed a Suit No. 132 of 2005 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Meerut in which Smt. Achala Dhawan and Rachita were opposite parties. In this suit, an interim injunction was issued to the effect that applicants will not interfere in the peaceful possession of informant, over the land in dispute. In the aforesaid Will which got registered, Anil Dhawan had mentioned that this is his last Will. It has further been alleged that the accused persons Achala Dhawan and Rachita Dhawan in collusion with Pradeep Kapoor and Rakesh Dhawan, got another unregistered Will, prepared of late Anil Dhawan and also got forged signatures of Anil Dhawan on the same. The said forged Will was prepared by Smt. Achala Dhawan, mother of informant. It has also been alleged that knowingly that this Will is forged, they are using it in Suit No. 132 of 2005 whereas no Will was executed by Anil Dhawan on 22.12.2006. The matter was investigated and final report was submitted on the ground that the matter is concerning the civil litigation and the alleged Will executed by late Anil Dhawan is sub-judice. The final report was submitted on 21.12.2005. Against submission of final report, a protest petition was filed by Aashima Sikka. The learned Magistrate rejected final report and summoned the applicants on 22.12.2006 which is under challenge in this application.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that there is a dispute in respect to Will executed by late Anil Dhawan, father of informant, in her favour and in favour of her unmarried sister Rachita. In this Will half of the immovable and movable property has been given to informant. The subsequent Will has been executed on 22.12.2004, is alleged to be forged. Howsoever, applicant no. 2 Rachita is holder of half of the share in the Will dated 28.8.2003 as well as in the subsequent Will date