SMT. HEMLATA BHARTI AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24595 of 2025

Smt. Hemlata Bharti And 4 Others
                                                        .....Applicant(s)
                                Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Opposite
                                                                 Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Rishikesh Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Ashutosh Pandey, G.A., Manoj
                               Kumar Mishra, Sanjay Kumar
                               Asthana, Shobh Nath Pandey

Court No. - 82
              HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the
charge-sheet dated 24.04.2025 along with cognizance/summoning
order dated 27.05.2025 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No.10369 of 2025 (State vs. Smt. Hemlata Bharti and Others) arising
out of Case Crime No.520 of 2024, under sections 467, 468, 471, 506
IPC, P.S. Jagdishpura, District- Agra, pending in the court of learned
ACJM-Ist, Agra.


3. The brief facts of the present case are that an F.I.R has been
lodged by Opposite Party No. 2 against the applicants on 14.09.2024.
In the present case, applicant no. 1 is the daughter-in-law of late
Kishori Lal, while the complainant/opposite party no. 2 is his
daughter. It is alleged that late Kishori Lal had bequeathed the
property relating to Khasra Nos. 408 and 409 in favour of opposite
party no. 2 and her sister by means of a registered Will dated
17.03.2023. After the death of Kishori Lal on 30.07.2023, opposite
party no. 2 applied for mutation of the said property before the Nagar
Nigam, Agra. Upon such application, the Nagar Nigam invited
objections from interested persons. In response thereto, the
applicants raised objections to the mutation proceedings and relied
                                                      NA528 No. 24595 of 2025
                               2


upon an unregistered Will dated 22.07.2023 in support of their claim,
allegedly executed by the deceased Kishori Lal. In short, allegations
against the applicants is that they having entered into conspiracy had
made a forged will dated 22.07.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants
have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that
applicant no.1 is the daughter-in-law of the original owner, late Kishori
Lal; applicant nos. 2 and 3, namely Rajkumar Bharti and Jai Bharti,
are his grandsons; and applicant no.4, namely Abha Parya, is his
granddaughter-in-law. It is further submitted that the names of
applicant nos. 1 to 4 were duly recorded in the records of the Nagar
Nigam, Agra, as far back as the year 2002, during the lifetime of
Kishori Lal. It is next submitted that late Kishori Lal, during his lifetime
and while in a sound disposing state of mind, executed a Will in
favour of the applicants out of his own free will. The applicants were
residing with him, and no dispute whatsoever arose with regard to his
property during his lifetime. Prior to his death, he is stated to have
executed a Will bequeathing his entire property in favour of applicant
nos. 1 to 4. He submits that Kishori Lal passed away on 30.07.2023,
and subsequent to his death, the complainant/opposite party no.2,
who is his daughter, has allegedly fabricated another Will in order to
lay claim over the property in dispute. It is further submitted that prior
to lodging of the impugned First Information Report dated
14.09.2024, a civil dispute had already arisen between the parties
with respect to property bearing Khasra Nos. 408 and 409. In this
regard, applicant nos. 2 and 3 instituted Original Suit No. 104 of 2024
(Rajkumar Bharti and another vs. Smt. Tarawati and another) before
the competent Civil Court at Agra, seeking a decree of permanent
injunction on the basis of the Will dated 22.07.2023, wherein the
complainant/opposite party no.2 has been arrayed as defendant no.1.
It is further submitted that the complainant has entered appearance in
the said civil suit and has filed her written statement, setting up her
claim over the property on the strength of another Will dated
17.03.2023, allegedly executed by late Kishori Lal in her favour. The
said civil suit is still pending adjudication, and the genuineness and
validity of both the Wills dated 17.03.2023 and 22.07.2023 are yet to
be determined by the competent Civil Court.
                                                   NA528 No. 24595 of 2025
                             3


5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that
late Kishori Lal had executed a duly registered Will dated 17.03.2023
in respect of his property in favour of his younger daughter, namely
Smt. Tarawati (informant), and Laxman Singh, who is the son of his
elder daughter, Smt. Jasoda Devi (son of late Fateh Singh), prior to
his death on 30.07.2023. It is further submitted that upon coming to
know of the said Will dated 22.07.2023, the informant got the same
examined by a handwriting expert. The expert opinion reveals that
the signatures attributed to Kishori Lal on the said Will are dissimilar
to his admitted signatures on bona fide documents, thereby indicating
that the said Will is forged and fabricated. On the strength of the
aforesaid facts, it is contended that the Will dated 17.03.2023 was
executed by late Kishori Lal out of his own free will, without any
coercion, pressure or undue influence, and the same is a genuine
document. However, the applicants, with an intent to usurp the
property of the informant, have fabricated a forged Will dated
22.07.2023. It is thus submitted that in view of the expert opinion
clearly demonstrating the mismatch of signatures on the alleged Will
relied upon by the applicants, a prima facie cognizable offence is
made out against them. Therefore, the present application, being
devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

6. At the very outset, it would be necessary to reiterate the settled
legal position governing the exercise of inherent powers under
Section 528 BNSS. The scope of interference at this stage is
extremely limited. The Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or
meticulously examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.
The inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, with great
caution, and only in cases where the Court is satisfied that
continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the
process of law or where interference is necessary to secure the ends
of justice. The parameters governing the exercise of such jurisdiction
have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein
illustrative categories were carved out for quashing of criminal
proceedings. Similarly, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs
State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315., the Apex Court
has reiterated that at the stage of quashing, the Court must proceed
                                                    NA528 No. 24595 of 2025
                              4


on the basis that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are true and
should not delve into disputed questions of fact.

7. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels
for parties and perused the material available on record, it
transpires that dispute between the parties is related to the
genuineness of wills and applicants and the informant are setting up
rival claims on the basis of two different Wills dated 22.07.2023 and
17.03.2023 respectively. It is also not in dispute that a civil suit is
pending between the parties before the competent Civil Court,
wherein the validity and genuineness of the aforesaid Wills are
directly in issue, but, on the perusal of FIR, statement of witnesses
and opinion of a handwriting expert, it transpires that the prima facie
offences are not made out against the applicants. At this stage in the
light of FIR, statements of witnesses and expert opinion; complicity of
applicants cannot be ruled out in the present case.

The contention of the applicants that the Will set up by them is
genuine and that the Will relied upon by the informant is fabricated,
essentially raises a dispute which is purely factual in nature.
Determination of such issues would necessarily require appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence, examination of witnesses, and
possibly expert testimony, all of which fall within the domain of the
trial court.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find that the
present case falls within any of the categories warranting interference
as laid down in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (Supra). The prayer
for quashing of entire proceedings is hereby refused.

9. However, the prayer for setting aside the summoning order
appears to have substance. Coming to the facts of the present case,
a perusal of the impugned order reveals that while passing the same,
the learned Magistrate has failed to record any satisfaction as to why
cognizance was not taken for certain offences mentioned in the
charge-sheet. The Magistrate is required to assign reasons either for
taking cognizance under additional sections or for declining to take
cognizance under the sections for which the charge-sheet was
submitted. In either eventuality, recording of reasons is mandatory.
                                                                                       NA528 No. 24595 of 2025
                                                                 5


                                    From the record, it appears that the learned Magistrate merely
                                    observed that upon perusal of the charge-sheet and other
                                    prosecution documents, sufficient grounds existed for taking
                                    cognizance. In the present case, the charge-sheet was submitted
                                    under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC, whereas
                                    cognizance vide order dated 27.05.2025 was taken only under
                                    Sections 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC. The impugned order, therefore,
                                    suffers from the vice of non-application of judicial mind and is also a
                                    non-speaking order, inasmuch as it does not reflect the subjective
                                    satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Consequently, the same is
                                    liable to be set aside.

                                    10. Cognizance order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the ACJM - I,
                                    Agra in Case No. 10369 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 520 of
                                    2024 under sections 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC is hereby set aside.

                                    11. In view of above, present application is disposed of.

                                    12. The matter is remanded back to the concerned court for passing
                                    a fresh reasoned cognizance order reflecting application of judicial
                                    mind.

                                    March 12, 2026
                                    Israr
                                                                               (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ISRAR AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad