[2025:RJ-JP:20252] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2515/2025 Smt. Asha Sharma W/o Sh. Khushi Ram Sharma, R/o Dehlawas, Siliserh, District Alwar Rajasthan Pin- 301001, presently residing at House No. 9, SMS Hospital Road, Jaipur (Raj.) …….Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. 2. Praveen Sharma S/o Late Dr. Mool Chand Sharma, aged about 66 Years, R/o 9, SMS Hospital Road, C-Scheme Ashok Nagar City (South) Rajasthan (India) and present address B-8, Swasthya Vihar Vikas Marg, Preet Vihar, East, Delhi (India). …..Complainant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 14/05/2025 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.108/2025 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, City (South) Jaipur on 21.03.2025 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that deceased- Ashok Kumar Sharma executed a “Will” in relation to the property in favour of petitioner on 12.07.2023. 3. It is further submitted that qua the said Will the petitioner has filed a petition before the learned Civil Court on 08.11.2024, wherein, respondent has raised an objection and apprised the [2025:RJ-JP:20252] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2515/2025] concerned Court that a complaint in this regard has been filed by the respondent. 4. Further, it is submitted that during the pendency of the civil proceedings, the petitioner has filed an application before the concerned Court, wherein, vide order dated 10.01.2025 an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner. 5. Furthermore, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sardool Singh vs Nasib Kaur reported in (1987) Supp. SCC 146, Santokh Dass Vs. State of Punjab reported in Criminal Writ Petition No. 677/1996, Smt. Ram Kaur Vs. General Public reported in Civil Revision No. 1526/1999 & M. Srikanth Vs. State of Telangana & Anr. reported in AIR 2019 SC 5363. 6. Lastly, it is submitted that no complaint has been filed by any other family member, except respondent No.2. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the objection has been raised before the learned Civil Court qua the validity of the Will. It is further submitted that FIR alleging fraud and forgery has been lodged by one of the close relative i.e. brother. 8. It is further submitted that the Will itself reflects that the petitioner was rendering services as a caretaker of the decease Ashok Kumar Sharma. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not even remotely related to the deceased. 9. Further, it is submitted that FIR categorically reflects that a forgery in a planned manner has been committed by the petitioner- Asha Sharma. It is further submitted that with the [2025:RJ-JP:20252] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2515/2025] intention of grabbing a property, the petitioner has provided aid and services to the deceased. 10. It is further submitted that the subject matter- property is measuring approximately 1040 square mtr., having value of approximately Rs.11 Crores. 11. Having heard and considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court has noted that the Will in question is highly disputed; that the beneficiary in the Will is the caretaker; that specific allegations in the FIR pertains to forgery; that objections are raised before the learned Civil Court qua validity and sanctity of the Will which reflects that investigation in the instant matter is necessary for fair adjudication of the dispute. 12. This Court has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Punit Beriwala Vs. The State of NCT Delhi & Ors. reported in SLP (Criminal) No.11042/2022, wherein, it is held that mere institution of civil suit is not a ground for quashing of FIR. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the present petition. 13. Howsoever, concerned Superintendent of Police is directed to conduct the fair and impartial investigation in the instant matter. It is made clear that the observations of this Court shall not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/63