Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

1. Jaini Singh and Udayveer Singh accused of committing offence under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow registered vide First Information Report No.681 dated 16.11.2018 have filed this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the said criminal proceedings.

The impugned criminal proceeding has been initiated at the instance of Kunwar Mohit Singh s/o Kunwar Brijendra Singh.

2. We have heard Shri Vivek Raj Singh learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the State and Shri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the Complainant.

We have carefully gone through the contents of the impugned first information report and the documents appended with the writ petition towards which our attention has been drawn.

3. Gist of the allegation in the impugned first information report is that so as to usurp ancestral property belonging to the complainant located at 9, Butler Road, Lucknow, Jaini Singh, Brijendra Singh @ Jamuni sons of Ratan Singh and Udayveer Singh son of Ram Charan have prepared forged documents. Mother and father of the complainant died a number of years back. So as to take advantage of their death, the above named accused through forged documents are making an attempt to usurp the property.

It has been alleged that the property 9, Butler Road, Lucknow was owned by Late Sardar Samsher Singh. Sardar Samsher Singh executed Will dated 26.06.1991 bequeathing the property in favour of the complainant, brother Kunvar Mohit Singh, and sister Ruchi Singh @ Rinki. Jaini Singh, however forged document dated 30.04.1996 bearing Succession Certificate No.348(8) Ra. No.02/96 purportedly issued by office of District Magistrate, Lucknow while relying on forged unregistered Will dated 25.11.1994.

It has been alleged that on the basis of these forged documents, the accused got the ancestral property defined as 9, Butler Road, Lucknow transferred in their names. When inquires were made through Right to Information Act in regard to Succession Certificate dated 30.04.1996 (supra), office of District Magistrate informed that it had never issued the said succession certificate.

4. In a nutshell, the allegation is in regard to forgery of will dated 25.11.1994 and Succession Certificate dated 30.04.1996, details of which have been given hereinabove.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Will is genuine and is the last Will and testament of Sardar Samesher Singh. It has further been argued that the succession certificate was never relied on by the petitioners before any authority and therefore, the basis of the impugned first information report is wrong. It has also been argued that in fact document dated 30.04.1996 is not a succession certificate and had not been forged by the accused. The impugned proceedings be quashed.

6. Shri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel, has vehemently argued that the Will is forged. Sardar Samsher Singh executed last Will and testament vide document dated 26.09.1991, which is a registered document. Sardar Samsher Singh was a Taluqadar and in accordance with Oudh Estates Act, 1869 the Will was duly registered and kept in the custody of District Magistrate, Lucknow.

Shri I. B. Singh has also argued that apparently Sardar Samsher Singh executed a number of Wills in the past. Being the Taluqadar and subject to Provisions of Oudh Estates Act, 1869 each of the Wills (prepared in English) was registered and kept with the District Magistrate. The Will in question of 25.11.1994 is not only inscribed in Hindi, but is also not a registered document. The testator died just three days after executing the purported will dated 25.11.1994. The circumstances themselves indicate suspicious nature surrounding the document.

It has been argued that in fact the petitioners have used Succ