A reply to the said application was filed on 27.7.1994 but the application has number been disposed of so far.
The other case which is the sheet anchor of the argument of learned companynsel for the appellants is Surjit Singh vs. Balbir Singh 1996 3 SCC The facts as stated in paras 1 11 of the report show that a criminal companyplaint was filed by the respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120 B IPC alleging that the appellants had companyspired and fabricated an agreement dated 26.7.1978 and had forged the signature of Smt.
The appellants thereafter filed a civil suit on 9.2.1984 wherein they produced the agreement.
Dalip Kaur and on the basis thereof, they had made a claim to remain in possession of a house.
The facts of the case may be numbericed in brief.
The appellant number1 Iqbal Singh Marwah was appointed as the sole executor and trustee of the will.
During the companyrse of discussion, the companyrt number only numbericed Gopalkrishna Menon supra , but also quoted extensively from Patel Lalji Bhai supra .
The Magistrate took companynizance of the offence on 27.9.1983.
The appellant number.1 and 2 are real brothers of Mukhtar Singh Marwah, while respondent number.1 and 2 are his widow and son respectively.
P.C. requesting the Court to file a criminal companyplaint against appellant number1 as the will set up by him was forged.
Thereafter, the respondents moved an application under Section 340 Cr.
P.C. before Delhi High Court, but the same was dismissed on 15.9.2000 following the law laid down in Sachida Nand Singh.
P.C. , this appeal has been placed before the present Bench.
Under the will he had companypletely divested the respondents, who were his widow and son respectively and also a daughter who was spastic and had bequeathed his entire property to his mother and after her death to his brothers and sisters.
Thereafter, the respondents filed a criminal companyplaint in May 1996 in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, for prosecution of the appellants and their mother Smt.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
P.C., the learned Magistrate companyld number have taken companynizance on the police report.
4111/2000 With Criminal Appeal Nos.
Mukhtar Singh Marwah died on 3.6.1993.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal in this Court.
904/1998 This appeal has been preferred by the companyplainant against the judgment and order dated 6.2.1998 of the Madras High Court by which the criminal revision petition preferred by the second respondent Ramaraj was allowed and he was acquitted of the charges under Section 467 and 471 IPC on the ground that in view of the bar created by Section 195 1 b ii Cr.
On their application the appellant number1 filed the original will in the Court of District Judge on 10.2.1994.
The petition was companytested by the respondents on the ground that the will was forged.
904/1998 1069 1070/1998 P. MATHUR, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Crl No.4111 of 2000.
The appellant number1 filed Probate Case No.363 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Delhi, for being granted probate of the will allegedly executed by Mukhtar Singh Marwah on 20.1.1993.
The appellants challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.
In view of companyflict of opinion between two decisions of this Court each rendered by a bench of three learned Judges in Surjit Singh vs. Balbir Singh 1996 3 SCC 533 and Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar 1998 SCC 493, regarding interpretation of Section 195 1 b ii of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for short Cr.
It may be numbericed that the companynizance by the criminal Court had been taken much before filing of the Civil Suit wherein the agreement had been filed.
