HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24595 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the charge-sheet dated 24.04.2025 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 27.05.2025 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.10369 of 2025 (State vs. Smt. Hemlata Bharti and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.520 of 2024, under sections 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, P.S. Jagdishpura, District- Agra, pending in the court of learned ACJM-Ist, Agra. 3. The brief facts of the present case are that an F.I.R has been lodged by Opposite Party No. 2 against the applicants on 14.09.2024. In the present case, applicant no. 1 is the daughter-in-law of late Kishori Lal, while the complainant/opposite party no. 2 is his daughter. It is alleged that late Kishori Lal had bequeathed the property relating to Khasra Nos. 408 and 409 in favour of opposite party no. 2 and her sister by means of a registered Will dated 17.03.2023. After the death of Kishori Lal on 30.07.2023, opposite party no. 2 applied for mutation of the said property before the Nagar Nigam, Agra. Upon such application, the Nagar Nigam invited objections from interested persons. In response thereto, the applicants raised objections to the mutation proceedings and relied Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishikesh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Ashutosh Pandey, G.A., Manoj Kumar Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Asthana, Shobh Nath Pandey Smt. Hemlata Bharti And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) upon an unregistered Will dated 22.07.2023 in support of their claim, allegedly executed by the deceased Kishori Lal. In short, allegations against the applicants is that they having entered into conspiracy had made a forged will dated 22.07.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that applicant no.1 is the daughter-in-law of the original owner, late Kishori Lal; applicant nos. 2 and 3, namely Rajkumar Bharti and Jai Bharti, are his grandsons; and applicant no.4, namely Abha Parya, is his granddaughter-in-law. It is further submitted that the names of applicant nos. 1 to 4 were duly recorded in the records of the Nagar Nigam, Agra, as far back as the year 2002, during the lifetime of Kishori Lal. It is next submitted that late Kishori Lal, during his lifetime and while in a sound disposing state of mind, executed a Will in favour of the applicants out of his own free will. The applicants were residing with him, and no dispute whatsoever arose with regard to his property during his lifetime. Prior to his death, he is stated to have executed a Will bequeathing his entire property in favour of applicant nos. 1 to 4. He submits that Kishori Lal passed away on 30.07.2023, and subsequent to his death, the complainant/opposite party no.2, who is his daughter, has allegedly fabricated another Will in order to lay claim over the property in dispute. It is further submitted that prior to lodging of the impugned First Information Report dated 14.09.2024, a civil dispute had already arisen between the parties with respect to property bearing Khasra Nos. 408 and 409. In this regard, applicant nos. 2 and 3 instituted Original Suit No. 104 of 2024 (Rajkumar Bharti and another vs. Smt. Tarawati and another) before the competent Civil Court at Agra, seeking a decree of permanent injunction on the basis of the Will dated 22.07.2023, wherein the complainant/opposite party no.2 has been arrayed as defendant no.1. It is further submitted that the complainant has entered appearance in the said civil suit and has filed her written statement, setting up her claim over the property on the strength of another Will dated 17.03.2023, allegedly executed by late Kishori Lal in her favour. The said civil suit is still pending adjudication, and the genuineness and validity of both the Wills dated 17.03.2023 and 22.07.2023 are yet to be determined by the competent Civil Court. NA528 No. 24595 of 2025 2 5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that late Kishori Lal had executed a duly registered Will dated 17.03.2023 in respect of his property in favour of his younger daughter, namely Smt. Tarawati (informant), and Laxman Singh, who is the son of his elder daughter, Smt. Jasoda Devi (son of late Fateh Singh), prior to his death on 30.07.2023. It is further submitted that upon coming to know of the said Will dated 22.07.2023, the informant got the same examined by a handwriting expert. The expert opinion reveals that the signatures attributed to Kishori Lal on the said Will are dissimilar to his admitted signatures on bona fide documents, thereby indicating that the said Will is forged and fabricated. On the strength of the aforesaid facts, it is contended that the Will dated 17.03.2023 was executed by late Kishori Lal out of his own free will, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence, and the same is a genuine document. However, the applicants, with an intent to usurp the property of the informant, have fabricated a forged Will dated 22.07.2023. It is thus submitted that in view of the expert opinion clearly demonstrating the mismatch of signatures on the alleged Will relied upon by the applicants, a prima facie cognizable offence is made out against them. Therefore, the present application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. At the very outset, it would be necessary to reiterate the settled legal position governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS. The scope of interference at this stage is extremely limited. The Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or meticulously examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. The inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in cases where the Court is satisfied that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law or where interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice. The parameters governing the exercise of such jurisdiction have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein illustrative categories were carved out for quashing of criminal proceedings. Similarly, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315., the Apex Court has reiterated that at the stage of quashing, the Court must proceed NA528 No. 24595 of 2025 3 on the basis that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are true and should not delve into disputed questions of fact. 7. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for parties and perused the material available on record, it transpires that dispute between the parties is related to the genuineness of wills and applicants and the informant are setting up rival claims on the basis of two different Wills dated 22.07.2023 and 17.03.2023 respectively. It is also not in dispute that a civil suit is pending between the parties before the competent Civil Court, wherein the validity and genuineness of the aforesaid Wills are directly in issue, but, on the perusal of FIR, statement of witnesses and opinion of a handwriting expert, it transpires that the prima facie offences are not made out against the applicants. At this stage in the light of FIR, statements of witnesses and expert opinion; complicity of applicants cannot be ruled out in the present case. The contention of the applicants that the Will set up by them is genuine and that the Will relied upon by the informant is fabricated, essentially raises a dispute which is purely factual in nature. Determination of such issues would necessarily require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, examination of witnesses, and possibly expert testimony, all of which fall within the domain of the trial court. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find that the present case falls within any of the categories warranting interference as laid down in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (Supra). The prayer for quashing of entire proceedings is hereby refused. 9. However, the prayer for setting aside the summoning order appears to have substance. Coming to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that while passing the same, the learned Magistrate has failed to record any satisfaction as to why cognizance was not taken for certain offences mentioned in the charge-sheet. The Magistrate is required to assign reasons either for taking cognizance under additional sections or for declining to take cognizance under the sections for which the charge-sheet was submitted. In either eventuality, recording of reasons is mandatory. NA528 No. 24595 of 2025 4 From the record, it appears that the learned Magistrate merely observed that upon perusal of the charge-sheet and other prosecution documents, sufficient grounds existed for taking cognizance. In the present case, the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC, whereas cognizance vide order dated 27.05.2025 was taken only under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from the vice of non-application of judicial mind and is also a non-speaking order, inasmuch as it does not reflect the subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Cognizance order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the ACJM - I, Agra in Case No. 10369 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 520 of 2024 under sections 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC is hereby set aside. 11. In view of above, present application is disposed of. 12. The matter is remanded back to the concerned court for passing a fresh reasoned cognizance order reflecting application of judicial mind. March 12, 2026 Israr NA528 No. 24595 of 2025 5 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad