Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
BABITA CHOPRA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE (GNCT); DELHI – Respondent
W.P. CRL. 2202/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vineet Mehta, Mr. Prakhar Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Amol Sinha, Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Nitish Dhawan

The existence of civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution for allegations of forgery, as distinct standards apply to criminal and civil liability.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 and 156(3) - Quashing of FIR - This petition is against the order allowing the registration of FIR for alleged forgery of a will, previously executed by the deceased, which is under probate proceedings - Although the will is subject to civil litigation, the court found sufficient basis for the FIR under penal provisions, emphasizing the distinct nature of civil and criminal liabilities. (Paras 1, 52, 61, 69)

(B) Criminal Proceedings - Parallel proceedings - The court clarified that the existence of ongoing civil proceedings does not preclude criminal prosecution when allegations disclose a prima facie cognizable offence - The necessity for thorough investigation, independent of civil outcomes, was emphasized. (Paras 60, 62, 68)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner challenges an FIR about the alleged forgery of a will executed by the deceased, which she claimed to validly receive as property. The Respondent alleges forgery through private expert testimony, which the Magistrate used to direct FIR registration. The case is entwined with ongoing probate litigation regarding the will's validity. (Paras 1-4, 50-64)

Findings of Court:
The High Court dismissed the petition, asserting that the Magistrate correctly recognized possible criminal conduct requiring investigation, separate from the civil probate matter asserting the will's validity. (Paras 69, 70)

Issues: The primary issues revolved around whether the Magistrate was justified in directing an FIR given the ongoing Probate dispute regarding the will and if evidence presented warranted criminal proceedings. (Paras 52, 54, 61)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the will's validity is subject to civil review, criminal liability for forgery is distinct and can proceed independently, endorsing the necessity for separate criminal investigations based on the allegations made. (Paras 61-66, 68)

Result: The petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to fir concerning a registered will (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. probate proceedings and the execution of the will (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. allegations of forgery and evidence act applications (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. arguments against registration of fir (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. reliability of expert opinions in legal proceedings (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. legal arguments citing precedents on fir registration (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. nature of allegations required for fir registration (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
8. legal standards for quashing firs (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
9. arguments against the legitimacy of the will (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
10. details related to pending investigations and status report (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
11. further proceedings and implications of handwriting expert report (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
12. court observations on concurrent civil and criminal proceedings (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
13. principles regarding investigation and proceeding with firs (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
14. court's stance on sham defenses in criminal prosecutions (Para 63 , 64 , 65)
15. importance of pursuing criminal allegations irrespective of civil proceedings (Para 66 , 67 , 68)
16. final conclusion on the legitimacy of the fir and dismissal of the petition (Para 69 , 70)

JUDGMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) filed on behalf of Petitioner/Babita Chopra challenging the Order dated 04.06.2024, whereby Ld. MM allowed the Application under Section 156 (3) CrPC and seeking quashing of FIR 197/2024 under Section 467 /471 of the Indian penal code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) dated 23.06.2024, P.S. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, registered consequent thereto.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Late Sh. Narender Kishore Khanna, brother of the Petitioner/Babita Chopra, was married to Smt. Kiran Khanna on 15.02.1976 and a son, namely Nitesh Khanna (Respondent No. 2 herein), was born from the wedlock, on 29.06.1977. Due to matrimonial discord, Late Sh. Narender Kishore Khanna started living separately from his wife and son/Respondent No.2 since 17.12.1994 and thereafter, started residing with his mother and sister. A Divorce Petition bearing HMA No. 186/1995 was filed by him, although the matter was reconciled. Respondent No. 2 again left Late Sh. Narender Kishore Khanna, on 25.03.2003.

3. After his wife left the matrimonial home, Late Sh. Narender Kishore Khanna suffered severe business losses and also met with a major accident. Despite these circumstances, his wife filed a false Complaint against him before the CAW Cell, which upon inquiry, was found to be false and closed. Thereafter, Late Sh. Narender Kishore Khanna continued to live with his mother and sister, who took care of him.

4. It is submitted that during his lifetime, Late Sh. Narender Kishore Khanna executed a registered Will dated 29.04.2011, duly registered on 04.05.2011 in the office of Sub-Registrar VII, LM Bundh Office Complex, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, vide Registration No. 1704, Book No. 3, Volume No. 1048, pages 130-131. Since his wife and son were living separately and had neglected him, Late Sh. Narender Kishore Khanna excluded them from all his movable and immovable properties and bequeathed the same in favour of his mother, Smt. Maheshwari Devi and his sister, Babita Chopra (Petitioner herein). Late Sh. Narender Kishore Khanna expired on 22.05.2013.

5. Thereafter, on 05.02.2014, Smt. Maheshwari Devi and the Petitioner filed Test Case No. 12/2014 titled “Smt. Maheshwari Devi & Anr. vs. State” seeking Probate/Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 29.04.2011, before this Court.

6. Smt. Kiran Khanna and Respondent No.2 were arrayed as Respondents in the said Probate Petition, who filed their Written Statement on 01.07.2014. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINeena Bansal Krishna, JBABITA CHOPRA – AppellantVersusTHE STATE (GNCT); DELHI – RespondentW.P. CRL. 2202/2024

The existence of civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution for allegations of forgery, as distinct standards apply to criminal and civil liability.

Cases Referred (8)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
BABITA CHOPRA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE (GNCT); DELHI – Respondent
W.P. CRL. 2202/2024