Karnataka HC Upholds Dismissal Of Daughter’s Criminal Complaint, Says Father’s Alleged Second Marriage And Will Need Civil Adjudication

The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that the respondent falsely claimed to be the petitioner’s father’s wife despite allegedly being married to another person, and had relied on a fabricated Will.

The complaint alleged offences under Sections 415, 416, 417, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 177 of the IPC

The Magistrate dismissed the complaint, treating the issues concerning the Will and the respondent’s marital status as matters requiring civil adjudication.

The Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner’s revision, including noting that the document relied on to establish the alleged marriage was not accompanied by a Section 65-B Evidence Act certificate.

The petitioner then sought to set aside both orders under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.

The complaint was brought under Section 200 CrPC and alleged offences under Sections 415, 416, 417, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 177 IPC.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, filed under Section 528 BNSS.

The Revisional Court referred to Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in assessing the electronic document relied on by the petitioner.

The Court stated that an allegation that a Will is fabricated or invalid does not, by itself, establish a criminal offence; whether creation or use of a forged document constitutes an offence depends on the specific allegations and material on record.

Questions concerning the validity of a marriage, the genuineness of a Will and related property rights require determination by a competent court on the pleadings and evidence.

The Court considered the complaint’s central allegations to concern the respondent’s claimed marital status and her claim under the Will.

It held that the mere assertion that the Will was invalid or fabricated did not establish criminality, and that any criminal offence would depend on the specific allegations and supporting material.

Finding no infirmity in the Magistrate’s conclusion that the principal issues required civil adjudication, or in the Revisional Court’s refusal to interfere, the Court declined to disturb either order.

It clarified that the petitioner remained at liberty to pursue appropriate civil proceedings concerning the alleged marriage, the Will and the parties’ property rights; all contentions in those proceedings were left open.