Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 56
CC No.2056-2024
SMT TRIPTA CHAUDHARY Vs. HEMANT VERMA AND ORS
12.09.2025
Present: Ms. Hemlata Jaimini, Ld. Counsel for the complainant through VC.
Matter is listed for orders on application u/s 175(3) BNSS.
Be passed over till 4.30 for orders.
At 4.30 p.m.
Present: None.
Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed by the complainant
u/S 175 (3) BNSS seeking issuance of direction to the SHO concerned to register
FIR against the accused/alleged for registration of FIR u/S 336, 338, 339, 340(2),
61(1&2) BNS, for forging of the Will dated 25.07.2025 of Late Sh. Bhanwar
Singh Varma and used the said Will as genuine document, under a criminal
conspiracy in the Hon’ble Court of Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, bearing no. PC
476/06.
Briefly stated, it has been submitted by the complainant that Late Sh.
Bhanwar Singh Varma is the deceased father of both the complainant as well the
alleged accused no. 1 and that he did not make any Will in favour of alleged
accused no. 1, while in the year 2006, alleged accused no. 1 had presented a Will
dated 25.07.2005, for grant of probate/Letter of Administration before the Court of
Ld. ADJ, THC, which was contested by the wife of deceased Bhanwar Singh
Varma. It has been further submitted that the alleged Will was a false and
-- 1 of 4 --
fabricated document and even the signatures upon the Will are forged and due to
the incompetency of the counsel engaged by the mother of the complainant (Late
Smt. Raj Kumari Varma) in PC 476/06, no appropriate measures were taken to
contest the alleged Will so much so that he did not even request for verification of
signatures of the deceased from a Forensic Expert while, incidentally, when the
younger sister of the complainant, got the signature verified from a private
handwriting expert, namely Forensic Services India, Delhi, by providing the
signature sample of Service Book record of the deceased, it was reported by the
Expert that the signatures of the deceased on the Service Book record do not
match with the signatures affixed on alleged Will dated 25.07.2005, thus, clearly
indicating that the signatures on the Will are forged and fabricated. It has been
further submitted that on 09.07.2024, a complaint was made to SHO PS Subzi
Mandi, but no action was taken by IO SI Kiranpal Singh till 16.08.2024, after
which an email was sent to the DCP concerned on 17.08.2024 along with copy of
the complaint filed with SHO concerned, despite which, no action was taken on
the complaint of the complainant.
Action taken report was filed by Enquiry Officer, SI Kiranpal Singh,
duly forwarded by the SHO concerned. As per the enquiry, the complainant had
corroborated the facts as mentioned in the complaint and while the alleged
Hemant Varma was also contacted and examined, who had stated that the Will
dated 25.07.2005 presented in probate case and probate was granted in his favour
by the Sh. A.K. Chawla, Ld. ADJ, THC on 01.03.2012 and that the complainant
herein was arrayed as respondent no. 4 in the said case and that the objections
filed on her behalf in the said Probate case along with the other respondents,
including the deceased mother of the complainant, to the effect that the signatures
on the said Will were forged and the Will was fabricated, was rejected by the Ld.
Court, and that the veracity and authenticity of the said Will was tested by the Ld.
Court and it was found to be genuine. It has been further stated in the report that
the complainant herein has filed a petition bearing no. 40/2024, seeking revocation
of probate of Will under Section 263 Indian Succession Act, pending before the
-- 2 of 4 --
Ld. ADJ, THC. Enquiry Officer has concluded that no cognizable offence is made
out from the allegations of the complainant.
During the course of arguments, the facts narrated above were
reiterated by the counsel for the complainant which are not repeated herein for the
sake of brevity. Ith as been additionally argued by the learned counsel that the
validity of the Will was never examined in the Probate Case and that pursuant to
the death of the mother of the complainant, certain documents were found from
her possession. It has been further argued that the second property cited in the
alleged Will was never owned by the deceased Bhanwar Singh Varma for him to
bequeath in a Will. It has been further submitted that it is not a valid Will and that
it has caused damage to the other legal heirs of the deceased Bhanwar Singh
Varma. It has been lastly argued that the complainant has got the Will examined
by a Forensic Expert whose report corroborates the contention of the complainant
that the Will dated 25.07.2005 is forged and fabricated. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled
Shivakumar &
Ors. vs.
Sharanabasappa & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6076 of 2009, pronounced on
24.04.2020), qua the contention that the Will dated 25.07.2005 is not a genuine
Will.
Submissions heard. Record perused along with the judgment filed by
the complainant, carefully.
At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the case titled
M/S. Skipper Beverages Pvt Ltd. vs State, 92 (2001) DLT
217 has held that:
“10. Section 156(3) of the Code aims at curtailing and
controlling the arbitrariness on the part of the police authorities
in the matter of registration of FIRs and taking up
investigations, even in those cases where the same are
warranted. The Section empower the Magistrate to issue
directions in this regard but this provision should not be
permitted to be misused by the complainants to get police cases
registered even in those cases which are not very serious in
nature and the Magistrate himself can hold enquiry under
-- 3 of 4 --
Chapter XV and proceed against the accused if required.
Therefore, a Magistrate, must apply his mind before passing an
order under Section 156(3) of the Code and must not pass these
orders mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant.
These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases
where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond
the reach of complainant or custodial interrogation appears to
be necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact.”
It is a matter of record that the alleged offence is based on
documentary evidence, which admittedly is in the possession of the complainant,
thus, the purpose of lodging of FIR in such a scenario is not forthcoming. Further,
it is not the case of the applicant/complainant that any material is to be discovered
by the police which is not already on record or which cannot be procured by the
complainant. Identity of the accused persons is also known to the complainant.
Further, the facts alleged by the complainant are also not complex, which requires
field investigation by a police official or which requires a scientific examination,
at this stage. It is pertinent to note that the true test to exercise discretion to order
investigation by police under Section 175(3) BNSS is not whether any cognizable
offence is committed or not, but whether an investigation by police agency is
required or not. Thus, considering the totality of circumstances, no ground is made
out to allow the present application as there is nothing new which can be
unearthed by directing another investigation into the matter. Accordingly, the
present application filed by the complainant/applicant u/S 175(3) BNSS stands
disposed of as dismissed.
Put up for PSE on 26.11.2025.
(Preeti Rajoria)
JMFC-07/Central District
Delhi/12.09.2025
-- 4 of 4 --