Punjab-Haryana High Court
Col. Mandeep Sandhu vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Anr on 25 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-41647 of 2018
Date of Decision: January 25, 2023
Col. Mandeep Sandhu ...Petitioner
Versus
UT of Chandigarh and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. R. Kartikeya, Mr. Ranjeet Saini and
Mr. Sunny Juneja, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. A.M. Punchhi, PP for UT., Chandigarh.
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer
is made to quash FIR No.36 dated 09.03.2006 registered at Police Station
Sector-3, Chandigarh under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. One Pawandeep Sandhu had executed a Will dated 14.11.2004
bequeathing his estate in favour of his mother Smt. Kuldeep Kaur. The Will
was witnessed by Lt. Col. Jasdeep Sandhu and Banta Singh. Said
Pawandeep Sandhu died on 18.01.2005. Petitioner Col. Mandeep Sandhu is
the brother; whereas Smt. Ritu Grewal is sister of Pawandeep Sandhu.
Respondent No.2- Rajeshwari is the alleged wife of Pawandeep Sandhu.
3. Respondent No.2 - Rajeshwari got registered FIR No.36 dated
09.03.2006 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station
Sector 3 Chandigarh against petitioner, his mother Smt. Kuldeep Kaur,
sister Smt. Ritu Grewal and two attesting witnesses of the Will, alleging the
1 of 6
CRM-M-41647 of 2018
forgery of the Will. On the other hand, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur filed probate
case bearing No.RT-1/16.06.2009/27.03.2006 - CIS/PROB-000002/2013
before learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on the basis of above-
said Will dated 14.11.2004, wherein respondent No.2 was also impleaded
as a party. The probate case was dismissed by learned Additional District
Judge, Mohali on 31.03.2015 by holding that Will is proved but the same
was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. However, FAO No.5306 of
2015 (O&M) filed by Smt. Kuldeep Kaur was allowed by this High Court
vide order dated 13.01.2022 (Annexure P.12) and the Will was held to be
genuine. Aggrieved by the said order, Rajeshwari filed Special Leave
Petition No.6452 of 2022 but the same was dismissed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 13.04.2022 vide Annexure P.13. The review petitions
filed by Rajeshwari as well as respondent No.1 - UT, Chandigarh were
also dismissed on 02.11.2022 and 12.12.2022 (Annexure P.14 and
Annexure P.16 respectively).
4. Petitioner has prayed for quashing FIR No.36 dated
09.03.2006 in view of the finding returned by the Civil Court. On the
other hand, contention of the respondents is that the findings of the Civil
Court are not binding on the Criminal Court and that matter is required to
be investigated qua the genuineness of the Will, as the said Will is
alleged by the complainant of the FIR i.e. Respondent No.2 Rajeshwari to
be a forged document.
5. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and have
appraised the record.
6. Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:-
Page No.2 out of 6 pages
2 of 6
CRM-M-41647 of 2018
"41. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc.,
jurisdiction.--A final judgment, order or decree of a competent
Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or
insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from
any person any legal character, or which declares any person to
be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific
thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is
relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the
title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.
Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof --
that any legal character which it confers accrued at the
time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation;
that any legal character, to which it declares any such
person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when
such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that
person;
that any legal character which it takes away from any such
person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or
decree declared that it had ceased or should cease;
and that anything to which it declares any person to be so
entitled was the property of that person at the time from which
such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or
should be his property."
7. A bare perusal of the above-said provision reveals that the
final judgment, order or decree of the competent Court in exercise of the
probate jurisdiction is conclusive proof regarding any legal character,
which is declared by the same or which is accrued to a person by way of
Page No.3 out of 6 pages
3 of 6
CRM-M-41647 of 2018
the said judgment, order or decree. In K.G. Premshanker Vs. Inspector
of Police and Another, (2002) 8 SCC 87, after reviewing the relevant
precedents on the matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"30...(4). if the criminal case and the civil proceedings are for
the same cause, judgment of the civil Court would be relevant if
conditions of any of the Sections 40 to 43 are satisfied, but it
cannot be said that the same would be conclusive except as
provided in Section 41. Section 41 provides which judgment
would be conclusive proof of what is stated therein."
8. It is, thus, clear that legislature has carved out a special
provision for judgments under Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act,
wherein such decisions are to be taken as conclusive proof of what is
stated therein and binding on all courts, whether civil or criminal.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents have referred to Syed
Askari Vs. State, (2009) 5 SCC 528, wherein it was held that if a
judgment of Civil Court is not binding on the Criminal Court, a judgment
of a Criminal Court will certainly not be binding on a Civil Court.
However, in the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to
Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act held as under:-
"31...It speaks about a judgment. Section 41 of the Evidence Act
would become applicable only when a final judgment is rendered.
Rendition of a final judgment which would be binding on the
whole world being conclusive in nature shall take a long time. As
and when a judgment is rendered in one proceeding subject to
the admissibility thereof keeping in view Section 43 of the
Evidence Act may be produced in another proceeding.
Page No.4 out of 6 pages
4 of 6
CRM-M-41647 of 2018
32. It is, however, beyond any cavil that a judgment rendered by
a probate court is a judgment in rem. It is binding on all courts
and authorities. Being a judgment in rem it will have effect over
other judgments. A judgment in rem indisputably is conclusive in
a criminal as well as in a civil proceeding."
10. It is, thus, clear that a judgment by a probate Court as per
Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act is in rem. Same is conclusive in
civil as well as criminal proceedings. In Syed Askari case (supra), the
proceedings were still pending before the Civil Court. However, in the
instant case, the same have attained finality, inasmuch as after holding
the genuineness of the Will by this High Court vide Annexure P.12 in
FAO No.5306 of 2015, the Special Leave Petition as well as the review
petition filed by respondent No.2 have since been dismissed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
11. A similar situation arose before this High Court in Crl. Misc.
No. M-29605 of 2008 titled as 'Nirmala Devi vs. State of Punjab'
decided on 2.04.2009, wherein it was held as under:-
"The primary grievance of the complainants is that the Will
executed by Amar Nath in favour of the accused was a forged and
fabricated document. Once the Civil Court has held the Will to be
genuine and this finding has also been upheld by the lower Appellate
Court and by this Court in Regular Second Appeal, there is nothing,
which can be urged to the contrary by the complainants to say that
the Will was a forged and fabricated document.
Hence, present petition is accepted and the FIR no.13 dated
17.01.2007 registered at Police Station City, Malout under Sections
Page No.5 out of 6 pages
5 of 6
CRM-M-41647 of 2018
465, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings, is
quashed."
12. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned State Counsel
submits that respondent No.1 has not got the opportunity to investigate
the matter regarding the genuineness of the Will because the original
Will was never supplied to them; on account of it being part of Civil
Court record. There is no merit in the contention. The judgment of the
probate Court having attained finality, as has been observed above, what
is left for any Court to do in the present FIR is not beyond imagination of
anybody. Let it be assumed for the sake of arguments that Police
investigates the matter and come to the conclusion that Will is not
genuine and files report under Section 173 Cr.P.C accordingly. The
question is as to whether any Court will be able to ignore the findings of
the Civil Court regarding genuineness of the Will, which has attained
finality upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. The answer is obviously NO.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that continuation of the proceedings of the FIR in
question will be a sheer wastage of time. As such, FIR No.36 dated
09.03.2006 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police
Station Sector-3, Chandigarh and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed. Petition is allowed accordingly.
January 25, 2023 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
renu JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page No.6 out of 6 pages
6 of 6
