Daughter Alleges Forged Will To Deny Her Inheritance; P&H HC Refuses To Quash FIR, Says Complaint And Police Case Should Be Tried Together

In brief

The question

Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed because the complainant had not disclosed the pending private complaint and summoning order in her earlier petition before the High Court.

The court held

The Court declined to quash the FIR or the proceedings. It held that the appropriate course was to allow the matter to proceed under Section 210 Cr.P.C., rather than prematurely terminate the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

It also directed

The petition was dismissed, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

01Facts

Jasbir Kaur alleged that the petitioners had used a forged will to obtain a mutation of her late father’s property and had made false statements in mutation proceedings.

¶ 3–10

After first approaching the police, she filed a private complaint and an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶ 3–10

The Magistrate treated it as a private complaint and, on 3 February 2016, summoned the petitioners and another accused.

¶ 3–10

A police investigation was later conducted following a separate petition by Jasbir Kaur, and an FIR was registered on 15 February 2019 concerning substantially the same allegations and accused.

¶ 3–10

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings, relying in part on Jasbir Kaur’s failure to disclose the pending complaint and summoning order in her earlier petition before the High Court.

¶ 3–10

02Issues

i.Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed because the complainant had not disclosed the pending private complaint and summoning order in her earlier petition before the High Court.

¶ 3, 9, 14

ii.Whether the existence of both a private complaint and a police investigation concerning the same offence required the proceedings to be coordinated under Section 210 Cr.P.C., rather than quashing the FIR.

¶ 11–13

03Law Applied

Section 210 Cr.P.C. governs cases where a complaint case and a police investigation concern the same offence: when the Magistrate is informed of the investigation, the complaint proceedings are to be stayed and a police report obtained; if a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is filed and cognizance is taken against a person who is also an accused in the complaint, the complaint and police-report cases are to be inquired into or tried together.

¶ 12

The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely; quashing may be warranted where the FIR’s allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence or are patently absurd or inherently improbable.

¶ 14

Provisions in the judgment · 14 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 156 Section 173 Section 195 Section 210 Section 340 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 193 Section 419 Section 420 Section 465 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471 Section 485

04Reasoning

The Court found that the complaint and FIR involved the same essential allegations and accused, but the complaint and summoning order predated the FIR.

¶ 11, 13

Section 210 Cr.P.C. therefore provided the appropriate procedural course: the complaint and police-report proceedings could be taken together, and the Magistrate had reportedly already initiated that process.

¶ 12–13

The State’s reply also indicated that the FIR followed a police inquiry and legal opinion, rather than being registered solely because of the High Court’s earlier order.

¶ 10

The allegations prima facie disclosed offences, while the complainant’s non-disclosure of the private complaint and the delay in lodging the FIR did not, by themselves, justify quashing.

¶ 14