1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-29585 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:- 23.12.2010 1. Rachana Ram; 2. Karnail Singh; 3. Jarnail Singh; all sons of Madho son of Dharmu; 4. Sh. Devi Chand; 5. Sh. Jaswinder Singh; sons of Bachana Ram son of Madho; all residents of village Rampur Sainia, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali. ......Petitioners Vs Amrik Singh son of Sh. Moti Ram son of Dharmu, r/o Village Rampur Sania, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali. ......Respondent CRM No. M-24029 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 23.12.2010 1. Gulab Singh son of Sh. Lachhman Singh, resident of village Rampur Sainia, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali. 2. Jasvinder Singh son of Bachna Ram son of Sh. Madho, resident of village Rampur Sania, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali. ......Petitioners Vs Amrik Singh son of Sh. Moti Ram son of Dharmu, r/o Village Rampur Sania, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali. ......Respondent 2 CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: Mr. S.S. Toor Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) Both the cases being inter-connected were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners in both the cases have been named as accused in a criminal complaint now pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Panchkula. On receipt of the complaint, the complainant and two of his witnesses were examined by the learned trial Court and on consideration of the evidence tendered and materials brought on record by the complainant an order dated 23.07.2008 had been passed by the learned trial Court summoning the accused-petitioners. Aggrieved and contending that the complaint petition does not disclose the offences alleged or any other offence, the two cases have been filed for quashing of the complaint petition as well as the order dated 23.07.2008 summoning the accused. A reading of the complaint petition would go to show that the complainant, Amrik Singh, is the son of one Moti Ram who is the brother of deceased, Madho Ram, the father and the grand-father of the accused Nos. 1 to 5. According to the complainant, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in conspiracy with the accused Nos. 6 and 7 (attesting witness and scribe to the Will) had committed forgery of the Will of deceased Madho Ram which is a false and fabricated 3 document. Therefore, it is alleged, offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC have been committed by the accused persons. Apart from the aforesaid averment there is no further allegation in the complaint petition in so far as the accused persons are concerned. A reading of the Will enclosed to the complaint petition which is a part of the record of the present cases would indicate that the same was executed on 16.03.1995. By the said Will, Madho Ram, during his life-time had bequeathed the property covered by the Will in favour of his four sons i.e. the first three accused and one Bachana Ram who had died in the year 2005. The fourth and the fifth accused are the sons of the aforesaid Bachna Ram and the grand-sons of the testator Madho Ram. The above facts which are not in dispute would go to show that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of Madho Ram who otherwise also are entitled to their respective shares in the property of Madho Ram after his death. If that be so, there will be little basis in the allegations made in the complaint petition that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in connivance with the accused Nos. 6 to 7 had brought into existence a false document and thereby had committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. As laid down in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR, 1992 (SC), 604, (paragraph 108), if the allegation made in the FIR or a complaint petition is inherently incredible, the same would be an abuse of the process of the Court and a proceeding on such basis would be liable to be interdicted so as to prevent miscarriage of justice. In the present cases, considering the 4 fact that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of Madho Ram, the allegation that they had committed the offence of forgery in fabricating a forged Will by which the property was bequeathed to the accused Nos. 1 to 5 has to be understood to be unacceptable on the very face of it. The learned trial Court while passing the order dated 23.07.2008 summoning the accused-petitioners did not take into account the aforesaid facts into consideration which renders the said order untenable in law. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Criminal Miscellaneous applications are allowed. The proceedings in complaint case against the accused Nos. 1 to 7 now pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula shall stand quashed. (RANJAN GOGOI) 23.12.2010 JUDGE Amodh 5