HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44439 of 2023 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; Ms.Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 15.06.2022; cognizance order dated 03.01.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.150 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.794 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of C.J.M., District Gorakhpur. 3. The instant F.I.R. has been registered through application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the son of applicant no. 1 alleging that applicant no. 1 (mother of the complainant) with other co-accused manufactured fabricated will deed dated 06.01.1999 stating therein that grandmother is not alive whereas grandmother died on 14.01.2000 and father-in-law of the applicant no. 1 executed will deed in favour of the applicant no. 1. The husband of applicant no. 1 is deaf and dumb but educated person. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that in the forged will deed grandmother, Shanti Devi is shown as dead and Will is executed on 06.01.1999 whereas the grandmother, Shanti Devi is died on 14.01.2000. On the basis of this allegation, the F.I.R. has been registered with other various allegations. 4. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The I.O. recorded the statement of informant and other two witnesses, namely, Sanjeet Shukla and Dheeraj Shukla. The statement of independent witnesses are not disclosing the material evidence to prosecute the applicants in the present case and the statement of the informant is repetition of the contents of the F.I.R. It is next submitted that on perusal of the F.I.R. and other material evidence collected by the I.O., prima facie, no offence under the alleged Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Kumar, Amrish Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vijeta Singh, Anshul Tiwari, Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, Digvijay Tiwari, G.A., Kunwar Aditya Pratap Singh, Mahendra Bahadur Singh, Shivanshu Shekhar Urmila Singh And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Sections is made out. The allegation alleged in the F.I.R. is that while executing the forged Will deed dated 06.01.1999, it is mentioned in the Will deed that the wife of the executor of the Will was not alive and it is next submitted that applicants have not get any benefit of the aforesaid Will deed and the Will deed has not been challenged before any court. The proceedings against the applicants is abuse of the process of the court. 5. Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2, vehemently opposed the submission of counsel for the applicants and submitted that on perusal of statement of informant as well as independent witnesses, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. It is admitted case that the grandmother of the informant died on 14.01.2000 and Will deed has been executed on 06.01.1999. In the contents of Will mentioning the death of the grandmother, prima facie, discloses intention of the applicants to get benefit of the Will. The present Will has been executed by the applicants. Counsel for the informant also argued that on perusal of Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., prima facie offence is made out against the applicants and prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution story. The charge sheet submitted by the I.O. is just and proper. 6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the parties. The offence of Section 419 IPC is made out only when a person cheats another by impersonation. In the present case, it is not the case, that the applicant no. 1 executed a sale-deed posing herself as someone else. Thus, prima-facie no offence under Section 419 IPC is made out. So far as the offence of Section 420 IPC is concerned, it requires cheating and dishonest inducement to any person to deliver any property to any person, the whole or any part of a valuable security. In the present case, neither there is any inducement nor any person has been deceived. The Will deed, which is said to be disputed, has been written by the grandfather of the informant, in favour of his daughter-in-law. There is no evidence that the will has been ascribed by the applicants. The only allegation against the applicants is that they prepared a forged Will deed in which grandmother of the complainant was shown dead. Thus, the offence of Section 420 IPC is also not made out against any of the applicants. The offences of forgery of valuable security for the purpose of cheating requires forgery of a document, which purports to be a valuable security or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security. In order to attract this offence, there must be forgery of a document. But the applicants have not get any benefit of this forged Will deed. 7. The criminal prosecution of the applicants for the offence with which they have been charge-sheeted, is not at all warranted. Thus, the criminal proceedings against them are nothing but abuse of the process of Court and in order to secure the ends of justice, it is expedient that the criminal A482 No. 44439 of 2023 2 proceedings against them be quashed. 8. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.150 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.794 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt, District Gorakhpur, is hereby quashed. 9. The application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. October 15, 2025 Meenu Singh A482 No. 44439 of 2023 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad