Delhi High Court Rejects Petition to Quash FIR in Alleged Will Forgery Case
The Delhi High Court has firmly declined to quash a First Information Report (FIR) that alleges forgery and the use of a forged will. In a significant ruling, the Court emphasized that the existence of parallel probate proceedings challenging the document's validity does not prevent a criminal investigation when the allegations reveal cognizable offences.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered this judgment on January 15, 2026, while hearing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition sought to quash an order directing the registration of FIR No. 197/2024 under Sections 467 (forgery of valuable security) and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code.
Background of the Family Dispute
The case originated from a contentious family dispute concerning the registered will of the late Narender Kishore Khanna. According to the petitioner, Khanna had separated from his wife and son years before his death and executed a registered will in 2011, bequeathing his properties to his mother and sister.
Following Khanna's demise in 2013, probate proceedings were initiated in the High Court in 2014. In these proceedings, the son contested the will, claiming it was forged and requesting an examination of signatures by handwriting experts. A private handwriting expert subsequently provided a report indicating that the signatures on the will did not match those on previous documents.
Based on this report, the son filed criminal charges, leading a Magistrate to order the registration of the FIR. The petitioner then approached the High Court, arguing that the dispute was purely civil in nature and was already under scrutiny in the probate proceedings.
Arguments Presented by Both Sides
Petitioner's Submissions: The petitioner contended that the FIR was grounded solely on an untested private expert opinion, constituting a misuse of criminal process to exert pressure in a civil case. They asserted that the will's validity was sub judice in probate proceedings, where no adverse findings had been made. The petitioner also highlighted that expert opinions are merely advisory, especially when signatures are compared across several years, and cited judicial precedents cautioning against criminalizing civil disputes.
Respondent's Submissions: The complainant opposed the petition, maintaining that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences warranting a thorough investigation. They argued that pending civil proceedings do not bar criminal prosecution, emphasizing the independent operation of criminal law. The respondent further stated that the Magistrate's order was justified and that interfering at this stage would obstruct the investigation, noting that additional charges related to concealment and impersonation required examination.
Court's Detailed Analysis and Ruling
The central issue before the Court was whether the Magistrate was justified in ordering the FIR's registration despite the ongoing probate proceedings. After reviewing relevant precedents, the Court clarified that while earlier decisions suggested caution, modern jurisprudence underscores the distinction between civil and criminal jurisdictions.
The Court reiterated that criminal proceedings must adhere to statutory procedures and cannot be halted merely because related civil matters are pending. It stressed that allegations of forgery and the use of forged documents constitute independent offences under criminal law, not merely issues of civil invalidity.
In its judgment, the Court observed: "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."
The Court emphasized that it could not conduct a "mini trial" at this stage to assess the credibility of allegations or evaluate evidence. It noted that the Magistrate had relied on the expert report and allegations indicating conspiracy and forgery, which prima facie disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted the doctrinal separation between civil and criminal inquiries: probate proceedings assess a will's validity based on civil standards of proof, while criminal prosecution focuses on dishonest intent and statutory offences. The Court quoted authority emphasizing the need for swift criminal justice: "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."
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that no grounds existed to quash the FIR at the initial stage. It ruled that any disputed questions regarding the will's genuineness should be addressed during the investigation and trial, not through quashing jurisdiction.
Case Details and Legal Representation
The case was registered as W.P. CRL. 2202/2024, titled BABITA CHOPRA vs THE STATE (GNCT); DELHI & Ors. Advocates Mr. Vineet Mehta and Mr. Prakhar Sharma represented the petitioner, while Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (CRL), along with advocates Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, and Mr. Nitish Dhawan, appeared for the State.
This ruling reinforces the principle that criminal investigations into serious allegations like forgery must proceed independently, ensuring that justice is not delayed by overlapping civil proceedings.
