High Courts(1995) 01 P&H CK 0083

Sita Ram vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 19 January 1995 · Citation: (1995) 1 RCR(Criminal) 732

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K.Bali, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9624-M of 1993

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 280 words

V.K. Bali, J.

1.

Prayer in this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to quash FIR No. 353 dated December 20, 1992, under Sections 419, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa.

2.

The allegations made in the FIR reveal that petitioner forged a Will dated June 19, 1991. It requires to be mentioned that earlier in point of time a Will with regard to the same very property was executed in favour of respondent No. 2. The said Will is dated April 1, 1991.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contends that with regard to two Wills, referred to above there is civil litigation between petitioners and respondent No. 2, and till such time at least the civil suits are decided, criminal proceedings should be kept in abeyance. For his aforesaid stand, learned counsel relies upon Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Ann v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 709, Narinder Nath Ahuja v. State of Haryana, 1991(2) RCR 217 and Dharam Pal v. Mehar Singh & Anr., 1992(1) RCR 492.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case as also the judgments cited above, this Court is of the view that simply because civil litigation is pending between the parties, it cannot be said that universally, in the facts and circumstances of all cases, criminal, proceedings have to be stayed or kept in abeyance. The facts of the cases relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are totally different and have no parity with the facts of the present case.

Dismissed