- (1.) Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashing of order dated 23.2.2006 whereby charge was ordered to be framed against them.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court had ordered framing of the charge against the petitioners only on the basis of report of a handwriting expert. There was no other evidence on record to make out a case for proceeding against the petitioners.
(3.) Learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, have submitted that in the civil proceedings, the Will set up by the petitioners was disbelieved and the Will in question was a forged document. The petitioners had lost up to the Apex Court in the civil litigation. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant-Kuldip Singh had one sister, namely, Bhulli Devi. Sunheri Devi, Hukam Singh and Ajmer Singh were children of Bhulli Devi. Sunheri Devi and Ajmer Singh had died. After the death of Darab Singh in the year 1972, mutation qua land of Darab Singh was sanctioned in favour of Hukam Singh, Ajmer Singh and Sunheri Devi. The mutation was challenged by Zila Singh, Dal Singh basing reliance on Will executed in their favour by Darab Singh. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of Zila Singh and Dal Singh on the basis of the Will. The said order was upheld upto the Court of the Financial Commissioner. Thereafter, the complainant filed a civil suit and in the said proceedings, the thumb impression of Darab Singh on the Will was got compared from a finger print expert with thumb impression of Darab Singh available in the record of consolidation proceedings. As per the report of the expert,the thumb impression on the Will did not match with the thumb impression of Darab Singh on the revenue record. The Will in question was a forged and fabricated document.;