CRM No. M-20023 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-20023 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.9.2009 Swaranjit Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition for quashing of the FIR, registered against the petitioners at Police Station Lopoke, Amritsar, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, vide FIR No.162 dated 2nd June, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the allegations against the petitioners are totally false and no offence is made out from a bare perusal of the FIR. She has emphasized that will, to which reference has been made in the FIR, had been believed by the revenue authorities and thus FIR regarding the same subject matter could not survive. This apart, a civil suit regarding the will is already pending before the civil court. The FIR has been lodged only to pressurize the petitioners. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention to Crl. Misc. No. M-46178 of 2007, preferred by the petitioners, which was dismissed as not pressed in view of the statement made by the State counsel that cancellation report would be filed in the case. According to CRM No. M-20023 of 2009 2 the counsel, the cancellation report was presented thereafter but the same was not accepted by the trial court and reinvestigation was ordered. Thereafter, the police presented challan in the court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition. The FIR was lodged by Pardeep Kumar alleging that after death of his father, the petitioners prepared a false will in connivance with witnesses. The father of the complainant is said to have expired on 13th June, 2002 while the will was prepared after his death showing the date as 15th April, 2002. The complainant further alleged that during his life time, his father had executed a registered will in his favour. The complainant also alleged that two witnesses, namely, Masih and Baldev Singh, whose signatures were shown on the will had given affidavits that father of the complainant had not executed any will in favour of the petitioners in their presence. Signatures on the will had been obtained by playing fraud. Pursuant to the FIR, investigation was conducted by the police. The petitioners, however, sought quashing of the FIR by preferring Crl. Misc. No. M-46178 of 2007. On 29th July, 2008, the said petition was dismissed as not pressed, as a statement was made before a coordinate bench of this court by the State counsel that cancellation report was being filed in the case. It appears that thereafter, the cancellation report was in fact filed by the police. However, the trial Magistrate is stated to have not accepted the same and he ordered reinvestigation. Thereafter, the police presented a challan against the accused. CRM No. M-20023 of 2009 3 It is, thus, clear that pursuant to the challan, the trial is now proceeding further against the petitioners. The allegations levelled in the FIR are of the nature that no finding can be returned without recording of some evidence. In my considered view, the submission of the counsel that the will in question having been accepted by the revenue authorities, FIR deserves to be quashed, is devoid of force. Admittedly, there is no finding of a civil court as regards the validity of the will till now. This apart, the investigating agency has presented a challan before the competent court. This court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the investigating agency in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra (1967) 3 SCR 668. Moreover, the order by which reinvestigation is stated to have directed by the trial court, has neither been impugned nor annexed with the petition. Even the challan presented after reinvestigation or further investigation does not form part of the petition. Thus, no plea for quashing the same can be entertained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no ground for quashing the FIR is made out, the allegations being basically factual in nature. The matter can only be decided after some evidence comes before the trial court. I, thus, find no ground to interfere in inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing the FIR. The petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. (RAJAN GUPTA) September 03, 2009 JUDGE 'rajpal'