G.S.CHAHAL, J. - (1.) RAKESH Kumar and others have come to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and seek quashing of summoning order dated Jan. 9, 1991 passed by CJM Sangrur and for stay of the proceedings initiated by the respondent in the Court of CJM Sangrur during the pendency of the civil suit.
(2.) THE facts briefly gathered from the complainant Annexure P-1 may be narrated. Parsini Devi, grand-mother of the complainant executed a registered will in favour of complainant, and his brothers and father on March 9, 1990. Having learnt about the execution of this will, the accused made out a plan and forged a will on March 14, 1990 and produced some impersonator as Parsini Devi. The said Parsinin Devi died on March 16, 1990 at the house of the petitioner. After the death of Parsini Devi, accused-1 Rakesh Kumar filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he has become the absolute owner of the property left by Parsini Devi on the basis of the will dated March 14, 1990. That all the accused had taken active part in preparing the above said forged will and they had, thus, committed an offence complained of.
(3.) THE accused petitioners claim that Parsini Devi had executed a will in favour of Rakesh Kumar who is son of Sagar Mall and the will had been witnessed by Chanan Singh and Jagat Singh-accused petitioners. That Rakesh Kumar filed a suit for declaration against the complainant for declaration that he was the owner of the land. That in order to avoid the decree in the suit, the complainant has filed complain Annexure P-1. That the subject matter in the civil suit filed by Rakesh Kumar and the complaint filed by the complainant was the same. That the fact as to whether the will was genuine or not is a matter of evidence which has only to be decided by a civil court. That while the civil suit is to continue, summoning order has to be quashed.;