CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30779 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 12, 2011 Anup Kaur and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. A. S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have prayed for direction to the official respondents to register first information report against respondent Nos.4 to 7 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The prayer to register the FIR is made in the light of order dated 24.5.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-4. In fact, Harbhajan Singh Bindra, respondent No.4 and others had approached this Court through Criminal Misc. No. 29012-M of 2001 for quashing the FIR dated 12.9.2000 CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30779 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The dispute in this case relates to ownership of 30 marlas House No.581-L, Model Town, Jalandhar. One Gurdip Singh Bindra, father of the petitioners, had filed a civil suit, seeking declaration against his brothers and sisters for being the sole owner of the house in his possession. He had also prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein for alienating the house in question. Since, the parties to the litigation had set up two wills, the Civil Court granted the order, restraining the alienation of the suit property. The respondents herein, therefore, had approached this Court, when an FIR was registered against them. The stand of the State was that the FIR was not liable to be quashed as the civil and criminal proceedings can go side by side. This Court, after taking into consideration that the civil suit was pending between the parties, took the view that dispute appeared to be of civil nature and Gurdip Singh Bindra, father of the petitioners, had made a claim on the basis of a will whereas the claim of the respondents herein was on the basis of another will. This Court was of the view that in FIR in question, allegations are made in regard to forgery of the registered will and the same was an issue before the Civil Court. The Court accordingly had held that the question will have to be CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30779 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: decided by the Civil Court after recording evidence and, thus, it was not proper to prosecute the respondents with the allegation when the validity of the will was yet to be tested before the Civil Court. The petition was accordingly allowed and FIR dated 12.9.2000 was quashed. While doing so, this Court had observed that the order quashing the proceedings will not come in a way for instituting an appropriate proceedings in future, in case the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the will is forged one and any opinion expressed in the said order would not effect the rights of the parties before the Civil Court in any manner. As per the petitioners, the Civil Court has now decided the civil suit and has decreed the same in their favour. They have, thus, prayed for direction to register an FIR against the private respondents in terms of the observations made by this Court while quashing the FIR registered against the respondents. No doubt, the civil suit has been decided in favour of the petitioners and has acquired the finality upto Hon'ble Supreme Court as the SLP against the said order has also been dismissed. The Civil Court finding is that the will propounded by the respondents is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and hence, disbelieved. This can not mean that the will is forged one. The Civil Court has, on the basis of evidence, expressed its opinion about the will, being CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30779 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: worthy of belief or not and has not given any finding that the will is forged one. No occasion, thus, would arise for issuing direction to the official respondents to register an FIR and that too at this stage, when earlier FIR, which was registered in 2000 was quashed in the year 2006. If so advised, the petitioner may invoke his alternative remedy as per the law laid down in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. And others, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392. The petition is, however, dismissed. October 12, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE