CRM No.M-23449 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-23449 of 2010 Decided on : 20.08.2010 Kiran Bala & others ... Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present : Mr. Raj Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. **** GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioners – Kiran Bala, Palwinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Jangir Singh have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.32 dated 10.07.2008 under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Balianwalia District Bathinda and consequent proceedings. Kapur Chand was the owner of the agricultural land at village Ballianwali, Tehsil Rampura Phul, District Bathinda and one kothi No.967 in Urban Estate-II, Hisar and some other properties. After the death of Kapur Chand on 27.05.2005, mutation in respect of his landed property was entered by the Patwari Halqa in the name of his widow Parkash Devi – complainant and Sheela Devi and Kiran Bala being Class I heirs, on the basis of natural succession. However, before the Circle Revenue Officer, Prakash Devi- complainant raised objection by producing a registered Will dated CRM No.M-23449 of 2010 -2- 09.11.2004 executed in her favour by the deceased. Consequently, declaring it to be contested case of mutation, the same was forwarded to the Court of Collector, Sub Division, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. The complainant – Parkash Devi produced the said registered Will whereas petitioner No.1 put up another Will dated 26.12.2004 executed in her favour and in favour of the complainant and Sheela Devi by the deceased. However, Collector, ignored the Will so set up by petitioner No.1 and mutated the land in favour of the complainant- Parkash Devi on the basis of the Will dated 09.11.2004. Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the above-said FIR. In the meanwhile, petitioner No.1 challenged the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Collector by filing an appeal. The order dated 14.12.2007 was set aside and the same became non-existent. In fact the controversy between the parties is of civil nature and the authenticity of the Will put-forth by petitioner No.1 can only be determined by the competent civil court. There is no material on record that this Will is false or fabricated document. The same was sent to FSL, Punjab Chandigarh for the comparison of the signatures of the deceased with other signatures, which were found similar. Therefore, the said FIR and consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR is liable to be quashed as the matter is already pending before the Revenue Authorities regarding the authenticity of the registered Will. It has already been found by the FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh that this Will bear the signatures of deceased Kapur CRM No.M-23449 of 2010 -3- Chand. Therefore, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the same matter is pending before the Revenue Authorities. Both these proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether the Will in question bears the signatures of the deceased is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in this petition. There may be some report of the FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh but that is only opinion evidence. How much weight is to be given to that report shall be seen at the time of the trial. It is to be seen from the contents of the FIR, if any offence is made out therefrom on the face of it or that the same has been got lodged with the malice on the part of the complainant in order to wreck vengeance. A perusal of the FIR shows that the complainant has specifically averred therein that her husband Kapur Chand-deceased had executed a registered Will dated 09.11.2004 in her favour and that the Will being propounded by the petitioners has been forged and fabricated by them and the same bear forged signatures of her husband. The offences under Section 465, 468 and 471 IPC are clearly made out from the contents of the FIR. There is nothing on the record to conclude that the FIR is the result of malice on the part of the complainant to wreck vengeance. There is no ground for quashing the FIR. Petition is dismissed. August 20, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH) sonia JUDGE