[2025:RJ-JP:20830] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3286/2023 1. Munindra Singh Son Of Late Shri Jagpal Singh, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of H. No. 92, Gaurav Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Renu Singh Wife Of Munindra Singh, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of H. No. 92, Gaurav Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Rajpal Singh Son Of Late Shri Mukhtiyar Singh, Aged About 78 Years, Resident Of Mandhaiya Lakhpat Singh, Pillkhua, District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Poonam Singh Daughter Of Late Jagpal Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of H. No. 92, Gaurav Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta Mr. Mahendra Shandilya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Mukesh Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 16/05/2025 1. Present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for seeking directions for quashing of FIR No.175/2023 under the provisions of Section 420, 406 and allied provisions of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Gupta has submitted that the petitioner No.1 is brother of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2- complainant has registered the impugned FIR in the year 2023 after demise of their father way back in the year 2003. It is submitted that primary allegations leveled in the FIR [2025:RJ-JP:20830] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3286/2023] are on the basis of one forged Will, petitioners has grabbed the ancestral property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a civil suit is pending and one of the issues framed in the same pertains to the aspect of authenticity of the Will in question, as whether the same is forged/fraudulent or otherwise. Learned counsel has also submitted that after hearing the matter at length the learned Civil Court had passed appropriate interim order. It is submitted that as per the contents of the Will in question, a portion at the first floor of the property in question is stated to be occupied by mother of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. 4. The old lady/mother of the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has marked presence in the Court and submitted that the said portion is in her possession/occupancy, howsoever, one of the room is occupied by her son, who on many occasions create disturbance in their smooth running livelihood. 5. The factual report is also submitted by counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that upon investigation, the matter is found to be civil in nature and they have filed appropriate result before the competent Court. 6. In the facts and circumstances, as an alternate remedy is available with the parties, in light of judgment of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 2 SCC 409], this Court gives liberty to the parties to avail alternate remedy and if there are any objections qua the factual aspect of the matter in hand, the same may be raised before the competent Civil Court. 7. The competent Civil Court is directed to consider the claim of respondent(s)/complainants, if so, in fair, impartial and legitimate [2025:RJ-JP:20830] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3286/2023] manner, pronto, without being influenced by the fact that petitioner is a practicing advocate. 8. In light of the above, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/s-341