Section 482 quashing is unwarranted where specific forgery allegations disclose a prima facie case requiring trial.

The two petitions arose from the same complaint filed by Harpreet Kaur alleging that the accused, acting in concert, forged and fabricated a Will allegedly executed by Bakshish Singh, thereby depriving her of inheritance.

The complaint invoked Sections 323, 420, 441, 442, 452, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 506 and 120-B IPC. A specific allegation was that Baldev Singh, purportedly an attesting witness, had not in fact attested the Will.

The Judicial Magistrate summoned the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 506, 427, 465, 467 and 468 IPC by order dated 02.06.2016. Their criminal revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 05.02.2019.

The petitioners sought quashing of the complaint, summoning order and revisional order under Section 482 Cr.P.C., contending, inter alia, that the original Will had not been produced, the complaint was delayed, no specific role was attributed to them, and the allegations were unsupported by the civil proceedings.

Whether the complaint and consequential criminal proceedings disclosed a prima facie commission of offences by the petitioners or were liable to be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

Whether the non-production of the original Will, alleged delay, and the petitioners’ asserted lack of a specific or overt role justified quashing the proceedings at the threshold.

Whether the summoning order reflected due application of judicial mind and could withstand scrutiny under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C., now corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS, which permits the High Court to exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383, the Court held that quashing may be exercised where allegations, even if accepted in entirety, do not constitute an offence; are inherently improbable; are legally barred; or are manifestly mala fide, but that such power must be used sparingly and not to assess the truth or reliability of allegations.

Under R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial, decide disputed questions of fact, evaluate the defence, or determine the genuineness of evidence while exercising inherent jurisdiction.

The Court also considered the requirement of judicial application of mind before issuance of process, as emphasised in Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 267, while distinguishing the other authorities relied upon by the petitioners.

The Court held that the complaint contained specific allegations that the petitioners had conspired with the beneficiary/co-accused to fabricate the Will and had also participated in incidents involving assault, criminal intimidation and mischief.

The absence of the original Will did not justify quashing because its custody was disputed, and the alleged fabrication itself remained a matter requiring evidence; the civil Court’s finding that the Will was not proved did not conclusively negate the criminal allegations.

The Court further held that conspiracy may be proved through circumstantial evidence and conduct, and physical presence at the place of execution was not indispensable to liability for conspiracy.

The alleged factual inconsistencies, delay, and evidentiary deficiencies were matters for trial and could not be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Magistrate had considered the complaint and preliminary evidence and recorded prima facie satisfaction before summoning the petitioners; the revisional Court had also upheld that order.

Consequently, the case did not fall within any of the categories warranting quashing under Bhajan Lal or Neeharika.

Both petitions were dismissed, and the complaint, summoning order dated 02.06.2016 and revisional order dated 05.02.2019 were left undisturbed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction and would not affect the Trial Court’s independent determination of the merits or the petitioners’ culpability.

All pending miscellaneous or connected applications were disposed of accordingly.