IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.761 OF 2010 Archana Arora & others ………Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Dated: September 14, 2010 Sri Parikshit Saini, Adv. for petitioners Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2 Sri SK Shandilya, Adv. for the respondent no.3 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed to issue writ in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned FIR lodged by the respondent no.3 as Case Crime No.398/2010 u/s 420/467/468/471/506 IPC at PS Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is that respondent no.3 lodged an FIR stating therein that his father late Laxmi Chand had executed a registered will whereby the house No.105 came in his share. For his other brothers, his father had earlier given the houses to them by executing the sale deeds. His father expired on 1.6.2005. On the basis of the said registered will, the respondent no.3 applied in the Municipality Roorkee for mutation of his name in places of his expired father, in which three months’ time was granted by registered notices by the Municipality to the brothers of respondent nos.3 to file their objection if any, against the said mutation and on 11.5.2007, the name of respondent no.3 got mutated. Thereafter, the petitioners Archana Arora, Mahendra Kumar, Sandeep Sharma and Deepesh Mehta, in connivance with the officials of Municipality, Roorkee, by committing fabrication, produced an application on 22.7.2009 and on the same day itself, for getting the names of Lalit Kumar and Mahendra Kumar, mutated in the Municipality records on the basis of producing a fake unregistered will. On 11.12.2009, elder brother of respondent no.3 Lalit Kumar had expired. It is also stated that on 15.3.2010, in the copy of records of the house in question, names of the petitioners were not there but in the copy of the order dated 22.3.2010, the names of the petitioners were found. It was also stated that his sister in law, in connivance with the brothers of respondent no.3, also threatened the respondent no.3 alienate him and his family members from the said property. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.3 has been filed wherein it is stated that Laxmichand executed registered will on 14.12.2004 whereby he given share in the house to respondent no.3 and prior to that he had given the share to both of his sons Lalit Kumar and Mahendra Kumar which is clear from the perusal of the registered will dated 14.12.2004, but after the death of Laxmichand, all the petitioners made a forged will dated 14.5.2005 just to grab the share of respondent no.3. Further, the petitioners, in collusion with the officials of Municipality Roorkee, got their names mutated in the records of the house of respondent no.3, just to grab the share of respondent no.3. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it reveals that the first will dated 14.12.2004 is admitted to the petitioners also. In the second will said to be executed on 14.5.2005, it is pertinent to mention here firstly that the said will is an unregistered will but the first will is an registered will; secondly, the photograph affixed therein is of the younger age while in the first will the photograph is of the old days, thirdly the three sons of deceased Laxmichand had been given their share prior to death of Laxmi Chand and they are living their property share as arranged by Laxmi Chand prior to will dated 14.12.2004 and lastly, even the name of the respondent no.3 has been expunged without his any knowledge . Thus, all these facts and circumstances create a reasonable doubt about the genuineness of the will dated 14.5.2005 inasmuch as the will dated 14.12.2004 is also admitted to the parties and it is an registered will in favour of the respondent no.3. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of FIR and the counter affidavit of respondent no.3 and also seeing the gravity of the offence, I am of the view that at this stage, prima facie offences punishable u/s 420/467/468/471/506 IPC are made out against the petitioners and the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 14.09.2010 Rajeev Dang