Why Delhi High Court refused to quash FIR in will forgery dispute; said probate case no bar to criminal probe

The Delhi High Court has declined to quash an FIR alleging forgery and use of a forged will, holding that the pendency of parallel probate proceedings challenging the document’s validity does not bar criminal investigation where allegations disclose cognizable offences. The Court also stated that civil adjudication and criminal prosecution operate in distinct spheres and that the High Court cannot undertake a “mini trial” while exercising jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings at the threshold.

The Court emphasised that allegations of forgery cannot be reduced to a civil contest over validity of documents, observing that “forgery, fabrication of documents and their use for wrongful gain are not mere matters of civil invalidity but constitute independent offences under criminal law.”.

The Court held that where such allegations disclose cognizable offences, criminal investigation cannot be halted merely because civil proceedings are pending.

On 15.01.2026, in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the judgment dismissing the petition seeking quashing of the order directing registration of FIR No. 197/2024 under Sections 467 and 471 IPC.

Background of the Dispute

The petition arose from a family dispute surrounding the registered will of late Narender Kishore Khanna.

According to the petitioner, the deceased had separated from his wife and son several years before and had executed a registered will in 2011, bequeathing his properties to his mother and sister. After his death in 2013, in 2014, probate proceedings were instituted before the High Court. In those proceedings, the son challenged the will claiming that it was forged and sought examination of signatures by handwriting experts.

A private handwriting expert later gave a report claiming that the signatures on the will did not match in the previous documents. The son filed criminal charges based on the same, and this led to the Magistrate directing the FIR to be registered. The petitioner decided to go to the High Court and challenge the FIR on the ground that the matter of dispute was civil and was already under review in probate proceedings.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner argued that the FIR was based on a mere untested private expert opinion and therefore amounted to misuse of criminal process to pressure a civil case. It was submitted that the validity of the will was ‘sub judice’ (meaning under judicial consideration) and needed to be proved by witnesses in the probate proceedings, in which no finding had been made against it.

The petitioner also argued that expert opinion is not final but only advisory, particularly where signatures compared were separated by several years. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents asserting that Magistrates are not bound to direct investigation merely because a cognizable offence is alleged and cautioning against giving criminal color to a civil dispute.

The petitioner also contended that it was not necessary to resort to a police investigation because all the relevant documents were already accessible to the complainant and an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would have sufficed.

Respondent’s Submissions

The complainant opposed the petition, asserting that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence warranting investigation. It was argued that pendency of civil proceedings is no bar to criminal prosecution and reliance was placed on precedents recognizing independent operation of criminal law.

The respondent further argued that the Magistrate order was reasonable and that interference at the threshold would obstruct investigation. It was also argued that expert opinion need not be conclusive for registration of an FIR and also the petitioner’s objections regarding the signature comparison were untimely.

Further charges were brought against concealment, impersonation in the execution of the will, and fabrication of supporting documents, all of which were said to require an investigation.

Status Report and Investigation
The State’s status report indicated allegations of conspiracy and forgery based on the expert report and that the inquiry was ongoing. Certified copies of the Will had been collected and an attesting witness examined, who supported execution of the document before the Sub-Registrar. The petitioner had joined investigation and stated that the original Will formed part of court records.

Court’s Consideration

The main issue that the Court put was on whether the Magistrate was justified in ordering the registration of the FIR when the validity of the will had already been questioned in the probate proceedings.

On reviewing the precedents, the Court pointed out earlier decisions indicating that criminal prosecution should not be made while civil proceedings on the same document are pending, but pointed out that subsequent jurisprudence clarified the distinction between the two. Citing the authoritative decisions, the Court noted that the criminal proceedings must follow the statutory procedure prescribed under law and cannot be halted merely because related civil proceedings are pending.

According to the Court, modern precedent does not provide any strict formula and stressed that quashing jurisdiction should be used with great care and with case-specific approach. It quoted the principle that civil and criminal liabilities may arise from the same transaction, and observed:

“Civil adjudication cannot always be treated as determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of quashment.”

The Court reiterated that forgery and forged document allegations are independent offences and not just issues of civil invalidity.

Relying on settled principles governing exercise of inherent powers, the Court underlined that it was not in a position to determine the credibility of the allegations or evaluate evidence at this point. Referring to established precedent, it observed:

“While examining an FIR… the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness… Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.”

The Court noted that the Magistrate had relied on the expert report and allegations indicating conspiracy and forgery, which prima facie disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation. It held that a careful scrutiny of the authenticity of the will or the opinion of the experts would amount to conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible.

Discussing the argument of the petitioner that the dispute was purely civil in nature, the Court held that probate proceedings assess validity of a will on civil standards of proof, whereas criminal prosecution concerns dishonest intent and statutory offences under penal law. These inquiries are distinct, and the existence of one does not bar the other.

It noted that in probate proceedings the genuineness of a Will is tested in accordance with succession and evidence law requirements governing proof through attesting witnesses. Even where signatures are proved, a Will may still be invalidated on civil standards of proof. However, allegations of fabrication, impersonation or use of forged documents attract penal consequences under criminal law, which must be examined independently.

Emphasising the doctrinal separation between the two jurisdictions, the Court stated:

“Civil adjudication regarding the validity of a document cannot preclude criminal prosecution where the ingredients of offences are prima facie disclosed, as the two remedies differ in their objective, scope and standard of proof.”

Reinforcing this principle, the Court noted the importance of timely criminal adjudication and quoted authority emphasizing that criminal matters should not await resolution of civil suits:

“The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure… the guilty should be punished while events are still fresh… and the innocent absolved as early as possible.”

Using these principles, the Court held that the allegations presented revealed a prima facie commission of cognizable offences and that the Magistrate was correct in directing the FIR registration. The Court held that the pendency of probate did not warrant stalling the investigation and that any disputed questions concerning genuineness of the will had to be addressed in the investigation and trial process and not in quashing jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that no ground existed to quash the FIR at the initial stage, and disposed of pending applications accordingly.

W.P. CRL. 2202/2024 BABITA CHOPRA vs THE STATE (GNCT); DELHI & Ors.

Appearance:

Mr. Vineet Mehta and Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Advocates for Petitioner;

Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (CRL) with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Advocates for the State

(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)