Validity Of Will Being Sub Judice In Probate Proceedings Does Not Bar Criminal Investigation For Forgery: Delhi High Court

The Court clarified that civil adjudication and criminal prosecution operate in distinct legal spheres, governed by different standards of proof, and that the existence of a civil remedy does not eclipse criminal liability where the allegations prima facie disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences.

The Court was hearing a petition challenging an order directing registration of an FIR for offences under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising out of allegations that a registered Will had been forged.

A Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, examined the material placed on the record, and held that “merely because the issue of validity of the Will is subject matter of civil and probate proceedings, this by itself, cannot be a ground to stall the criminal process at the threshold, particularly when the allegations disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences requiring investigation”.

Background

The dispute arose in relation to a registered Will executed by the deceased in 2011, which bequeathed his properties in favour of his mother and sister. Following the testator’s death, probate proceedings were initiated seeking a grant of probate/letters of administration in respect of the Will.

The wife and son of the deceased entered an appearance in the probate proceedings and specifically alleged that the Will was forged. During the pendency of those proceedings, an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was filed seeking examination of the signatures on the Will by a handwriting expert. Pursuant thereto, a private handwriting expert’s report was obtained alleging a mismatch of signatures.

Relying on the said expert report, a criminal complaint was filed before the Magistrate, along with an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking registration of an FIR for offences of forgery and use of forged documents. The Magistrate allowed the application and directed registration of an FIR.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process, as the genuineness of the Will was already sub judice in probate proceedings.

Court’s Observations

The High Court undertook an exhaustive examination of the legal position governing the interplay between civil and criminal proceedings arising from the same set of facts.

The Court reiterated that civil and criminal proceedings serve distinct purposes and are governed by different standards of proof. While civil proceedings adjudicate rights and liabilities based on preponderance of probabilities, criminal proceedings examine culpability beyond a reasonable doubt and require the presence of mens rea.

The Court noted that allegations of forgery, fabrication of documents, impersonation, and use of forged documents are not merely matters of civil invalidity, but constitute independent offences under criminal law.

Dealing with the argument that criminal proceedings should await the outcome of probate proceedings, the Court referred to earlier decisions where such contentions had been rejected. The Court observed that no straightjacket formula can be applied, and the exercise of jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings must depend on the facts of each case.

The Court placed reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar (2026), wherein it was affirmed that “adjudication of forgery or cheating will always carry a civil element, but there cannot be a general proposition that whenever a dispute involves a civil element, criminal proceedings cannot go on”.

The High Court emphasised that permitting quashing of criminal proceedings solely on the ground of pendency of civil proceedings would enable unscrupulous litigants to defeat criminal prosecution by instituting civil suits.

The Court further held that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, it is impermissible for the High Court to conduct a mini-trial, evaluate the credibility of expert opinions, or return findings on disputed questions of fact such as the genuineness of signatures.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that quashing of FIRs is an exception and must be exercised sparingly, only where no cognizable offence is disclosed on the face of the complaint.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the allegations in the complaint, coupled with the handwriting expert’s report, disclosed prima facie commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation. The Court held that the Magistrate was justified in directing registration of the FIR and that the investigation could not be interdicted at this nascent stage.

Conclusion

Holding that civil adjudication cannot be treated as determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of quashment, the Court declined to interfere with the FIR and dismissed the petition, observing that the truth or falsity of the allegations must be tested through investigation and trial in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Babita Chopra v. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:341)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Vineet Mehta and Prakhar Sharma

Respondents: Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) with Advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Nitish Dhawan, and Amol Sinha

Click here to read/download Judgment