( 1. ) INVOKING extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code) petitioner ajay Pandey has filed this petition for quashing the FIR dated 18-5-2006 lodged in Police Station, Habibganj, Bhopal and registered at Crime No. 466/2006.

( 2. ) THE petitioner has stated that he and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are son and daughters of late R. K. Pandey, retired Senior Member of Indian administrative Service. R. K. Pandey expired on 21-5-2005 at Bhopal. He, before his death executed a will on 17th April, 2005 in presence of Ravindra tiwari, a family friend and Advocate of more than 20 years standing and Rakesh tiwari, a Senior Officer with the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Late R. K. Pandey constructed a house situated at E-l/86, Arera Colony, Bhopal. He also left behind cash and other items of jewellery. By the aforesaid will the said house was bequeathed to the petitioner being the only son and for other deposits and investments amounting to Rs. 20 lacs nominated younger daughter, respondent no. 2. Before his death R. K. Pandey, handed over papers of immovable property to the petitioner and of deposits and other investments to respondent no. 2.

( 3. ) IT was further alleged by the petitioner that after the death of the father, the respondent No. 2 acting as nominee had withdrawn the entire amount; from the saving bank deposits and other investments amounting to rs. 20 lacs. There was no dispute between the petitioner and the respondents in regard to the distribution of the assets. After withdrawing Rs. 20 lacs the respondent No. 2 insisted that she be also given share in the immovable property. The petitioner tried to convince the respondent No. 2 that, pursuant to the will of late father she already has her share and it was for this reason that their late father had delivered the papers relating to the house to the petitioner and papers relating to other items to her, therefore the wishes of the father must be respected but the respondent No. 2, playing in the hands of some unscrupulous elements made an application in the office of the revenue authorities for incorporation of her name in the revenue papers. She also filed a civil suit for partition of the property, possession and injunction in the Court of additional District Judge, Bhopal, which is registered as Civil Suit No. 146-A/2005, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-2.

( 4. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was compelled to file an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate in respect of immovable property, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-3. The petitioner has averred that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, realizing that the proceedings in the civil suit may turn out to be a long drawn battle, decided to cut short and made a complaint to the police to get the FIR registered. Copy of the fir has been filed as Annexure P-4. The police authorities made an application to the Court of IX th Additional District Judge for examination of the will. The additional District Judge allowed the application and ordered examination of the will by a handwriting expert. Copy of this order has been filed as Annexure p-7.

( 5. ) NOTICE of the petition was served on the respondents.

( 6. ) I have heard Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Counsel for the petitioner, Shri prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for respondent No. 1 and Shri Ajay Gupta; counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

( 7. ) COUNSEL for petitioner submitted that the dispute between the parties is predominantly of civil nature. It was respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who first filed the civil suit for partition of property, possession and injunction. Petitioned also filed an application for grant of probate. In the civil suit, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have made the similar allegations regarding the alleged fictitious and forged nature of the will. If the investigation takes place on t