In an application filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regarding a First Information Report (FIR) registered for the commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Gajendra Singh refused to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
The applicant forged a will dated 04-06-2013 to depict that the same was executed by his mother in his favour. The property made subject to the will was purchased by the mother on 21-03-2006 through a registered sale deed for Rs. 2,00,000/-. The applicant’s mother, having two sons and a daughter, died on 02-12-2017.
The complainant in the present matter was the applicant’s sister who alleged that he revealed the existence of the will for the first time in 2023 at the Municipal Corporation Office, Ujjain and got the subject property mutated in his name on 29-04-2024 without their consent. Thereafter, it was also contended that the said property was transferred by a registered sale deed dated 16-10-2024 in favour of the applicant’s son (co-accused). In order to prevent the sister from receiving her share in the mother’s property, construction of a hotel was started on the subject plot.
Upon no help from the police administration, the sister approached the Court by a writ petition whereby the SHO was directed to consider the complaint filed by the sister and to take appropriate action as per Rajendra Singh Pawar & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2021) 2MPLJ 100. The alleged will was seized and the sister’s thumb impression was collected and forwarded to Finger Print Bureau of State Crime Record Bureau, Bhopal. By a report dated 16-03-2025, the Finger Printing Expert opined that the will did not bear the thumb impression of the applicant’s mother and the statements of the sole surviving witness of the will were also recorded.
The objector contended that the factum of the co-accused and the dismissal of his anticipatory bail application were suppressed. However, the applicant submitted that he had no knowledge of the case proceedings as the record was not available on the High Court website. It was also submitted that any alleged non-disclosure was without any intention to mislead the Court.
The Court noted that after the property was mutated in the applicant’s name, M/s Shalimar Associates was formed and a loan of Rs. 1,28,25,000/- was received from Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. on 23-10-2024. It was noted that Shalimar Associates was co-borrower of the present applicant for the loan along with two other persons, and that a sale deed was also executed by the applicant in his son’s favour.
Considering the Finger Printing Expert’s report, the Court stated that the present matter could not be treated as a mere civil dispute as it goes beyond the scope of a civil dispute. It was stated that when the co-accused’s anticipatory bail was denied, the applicant’s case stood on still weaker footing. Hence, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant while dismissing the present application.
