Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2009 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (3) TMI 1056 - SC - Indian LawsApplication for grant of probate - Disputed Will - Effect of pendency of a probate proceeding vis- -vis a criminal case involving allegations of forgery of a Will - Judgment in rem - appellant filed an application for quashing of the FIR which was, however, dismissed observing that the appellants would be at liberty to move the trial court by way of moving an application for stay of the criminal trial pending adjudication of the question of the genuineness of the Will by the Civil Court. HELD THAT - Axiomatically, if judgment of a civil court is not binding on a criminal court, a judgment of a criminal court will certainly not be binding on a civil court. We have noticed that Section 43 of the Evidence Act categorically states that judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provisions of the Act. No other provision of the Evidence Act or for that matter any other statute has been brought to our notice. As and when a judgment is rendered in one proceeding subject to the admissibility thereof keeping in view Section 43 of the Evidence Act may be produced in another proceeding. It is, however, beyond any cavil that a judgment rendered by a probate court is a judgment in rem . It is binding on all courts and authorities. Being a judgment in rem it will have effect over other judgments. A judgment in rem indisputably is conclusive in a criminal as well as in a civil proceeding. We have noticed the decision in K.G. Premshanker 2002 (9) TMI 849 - SUPREME COURT . Mr. Dwivedi, however, would submit that the court therein was concerned with a case involving Section 42 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel may be correct as it was held that Section 41 is an exception to Sections 40, 42 and 43 of the Act providing as to which judgment would be conclusive proof of what is stated therein. Pendency of two proceedings whether civil or criminal, however, by itself would not attract the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act. A judgment has to be pronounced. The genuineness of the Will must be gone into. Law envisages not only genuineness of the Will but also explanation to all the suspicious circumstances surrounding thereto besides proof thereof in terms of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. FIR was lodged not only in regard to forgery by the Will but also on the cause of action of a trespass. Appellant admittedly is facing trial u/s 420, 468 and 448 of the IPC. It is, thus, possible that even if the Will is found to be genuine and that no case u/s 468 of the IPC is found to have been made out, appellant may be convicted for commission of other offences for which he has been charged against, namely, trespass into the property and cheating. If it is found that the appellant is guilty of trespass, he may be asked to handover possession of the premises in question to the complainant. Whereas the criminal case is pending before the Delhi court, the testamentary suit has been filed before the Jharkhand High Court. Since 2003 not much progress has been made therein. The Will has not been sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion, which is essential for determination of the question in regard to the genuineness of the Will. It is alleged that the Will was registered at Hazaribagh after the death of the testatrix. For the last seven years in view of the pendency of the matters before the High Courts in different proceedings initiated by the appellant, the criminal case has not proceeded, although as noticed hereinbefore charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance of the offence has been taken. We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Effect of pendency of a probate proceeding vis-`a-vis a criminal case involving allegations of forgery of a Will. 2. Primacy and precedence between civil and criminal proceedings. 3. Applicability and interpretation of Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act in relation to judgments in probate proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Effect of Pendency of Probate Proceeding vis-`a-vis a Criminal Case Involving Allegations of Forgery of a Will: The core issue in this appeal is whether the pendency of a probate proceeding should stay a criminal case alleging forgery of a Will. The appellants argued that since the probate proceeding is a judgment in rem under Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, the criminal proceedings should be stayed. The court, however, emphasized that criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously with civil proceedings and that precedence is generally given to criminal proceedings due to the need for expeditious disposal. The court noted that the criminal case was initiated before the probate proceedings and highlighted the importance of addressing allegations of forgery and other criminal acts promptly. 2. Primacy and Precedence Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings: The court reiterated the established legal principle that criminal proceedings usually have primacy over civil proceedings. This is based on the rationale that criminal cases need to be resolved quickly to serve justice, while civil cases often take longer to conclude. The court cited several precedents, including M.S. Sheriff vs. State of Madras and K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police, to support this stance. It was noted that findings in civil cases are not binding on criminal courts and vice versa, except under specific circumstances outlined in Sections 40 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act: The appellants contended that the judgment in the probate proceeding, being a judgment in rem, should be conclusive and binding in the criminal case. The court acknowledged that a probate judgment is indeed a judgment in rem and binding on all courts and authorities. However, it clarified that Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act becomes applicable only when a final judgment is rendered. The court highlighted that the probate proceedings had not yet reached a final judgment, and thus, Section 41 could not be invoked to stay the criminal proceedings. The court also noted that the criminal case involved not just forgery but also allegations of trespass and cheating, which needed to be addressed independently. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that criminal proceedings should continue despite the pending probate proceedings. The court underscored the importance of addressing criminal allegations expeditiously and clarified that a final judgment in the probate case would be necessary to invoke Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act. The decision reinforces the principle that criminal cases generally take precedence over civil cases to ensure timely justice.
|