The Delhi High Court has held that the pendency of probate proceedings regarding the validity of a Will does not preclude the registration of an FIR and criminal investigation into allegations of forgery concerning the same document.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), observing that civil and criminal proceedings operate in “distinct spheres” and that forgery is an independent offence that attracts penal consequences regardless of the outcome of civil litigation.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Babita Chopra, challenging the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate dated June 4, 2024, which directed the registration of an FIR against her. The dispute centers on the estate of her late brother, Sh. Narender Kishore Khanna, who passed away on May 22, 2013.
The Petitioner claimed that her brother executed a registered Will on April 29, 2011, bequeathing his properties to her and their mother, Smt. Maheshwari Devi, while excluding his estranged wife and son, Nitesh Khanna (Respondent No. 2). Following his death, the Petitioner and her mother filed a probate petition (Test Case No. 12/2014) in the High Court.
During the probate proceedings, Respondent No. 2 alleged that the Will was forged. He obtained permission to compare the signatures on the Will with a letter from 2004 available with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). A private handwriting expert appointed by Respondent No. 2 submitted a report on December 10, 2023, alleging a mismatch of signatures. Based on this report, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint which led to the registration of FIR No. 197/2024 at Police Station Laxmi Nagar.
Submissions of the Parties
The counsel for the Petitioner argued that the validity of the Will was sub judice in the probate case, where the document was required to be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act. It was contended that the FIR was based solely on the opinion of a private handwriting expert, which is “advisory and not conclusive,” and that the comparison of signatures from 2004 with a Will from 2011 was unreliable due to the time gap. The Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sardool Singh vs. Nasib Kaur (1987) to argue that criminal prosecution should not be permitted when the validity of a Will is being tested before a civil court.
Conversely, the counsel for Respondent No. 2 argued that the complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, necessitating an investigation. Relying on Lalita Kumari vs. Govt of U.P. and Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd., it was submitted that the Magistrate was right in directing the registration of the FIR. The Respondent alleged that the Petitioner had concealed assets and that the photograph on the Will was from 2004, suggesting impersonation and forgery.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected the Petitioner’s contention that the criminal process should be stalled due to the pending civil suit. The Court clarified that while a civil court tests the validity of a document on the “touchstone of preponderance of probabilities,” criminal law addresses offences committed with dishonest intent.
The Court observed:
“Forgery, fabrication of documents and their use for wrongful gain are therefore, not mere matters of civil invalidity but constitute independent offences under the criminal law. Hence, civil adjudication regarding the validity of a document cannot preclude criminal prosecution where the ingredients of offences (such as forgery herein) are prima facie disclosed, as the two remedies differ in their objective, scope and standard of proof.”
Distinguishing the present case from Sardool Singh, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal, Syed Askari Haid Ali Augustine Iman vs. State (Delhi Administration), and the recent decision in Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy (2025). The Court noted that quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold by conducting a “mini-trial” or evaluating evidence prematurely is impermissible.
Addressing the weight of the handwriting expert’s report, the Court held that these are matters for investigation:
“No mini trial can be conducted to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the Handwriting Expert’s opinion, nor can it return any finding on the genuineness of the Will. Those issues are matters of investigation to be tested during the course of criminal investigation.”
The Court also cited M.S. Sheriff & Anr. vs. State of Madras & Ors., emphasizing that “public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure” and that it is undesirable for criminal prosecutions to wait until civil suits, which often drag on for years, are concluded.
Decision
Finding that the allegations in the complaint prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences involving conspiracy, impersonation, and forgery, the High Court held that the Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in directing the registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
The Court dismissed the petition, stating:
“In light of the above discussion, it is held that there exists no ground for quashing the FIR at this initial stage. There is no merit in the present Petition, which is hereby, dismissed.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Babita Chopra vs. The State (GNCT); Delhi & Nitesh Khanna
- Case Number: W.P. CRL. 2202/2024
- Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
