(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Anil Pandi and Another ……… v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

are that Mr. Surya Kumar Puri, in memory of his late 1 wife Smt. Pushpa Puri, proposed to establish a charitable trust for public welfare. He prepared and executed a Trust Deed dated 10.04.1993, wherein he was the Managing Trustee and included eight friends and associates as settlers. The applicants herein were attesting witnesses to the said Trust Deed. The Trust was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Mussoorie, on 29.04.1993. Mr. Surya Kumar Puri passed away on 14.05.1993. After his death, meetings of the Trust were held, and as per the terms of the Trust Deed, the estate of Late Mr. Surya Kumar Puri comprising certain immovable properties and monetary assets was intended to be transferred to the Trust corpus. However, one Mr. Suresh Kumar Puri, nephew of the deceased, filed a probate petition asserting a Will dated 27.06.1986 purportedly executed by Mr. Surya Kumar Puri in his favour. To secure legal validation of the Trust’s claim, the Trustees filed Probate Case No. 410 of 1993 before the District Judge, Dehradun, for grant of probate in terms of the Trust Deed. On legal advice that probate could not be granted to the Trust as it was not an 2 executor under the Indian Succession Act, the petition was withdrawn, and a fresh Petition No. 141 of 1995 for Letters of Administration was filed by the settlers.

4. Mr. Suresh Kumar Puri contested the said petition, and both proceedings one filed by him for probate of the 1986 Will, and the other by the Trust were consolidated and tried together. During the pendency of the said testamentary litigation, Mr. Suresh Kumar Puri filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 28.05.1998, alleging forgery in the Trust Deed dated 10.04.1993. On this basis, FIR No. 126/1998 was registered alleging tampering and addition of two lines in the third paragraph of the Trust Deed with the alleged collusion of employee of office of Sub-Registrar. Upon investigation, a charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer, and the Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges on 10.06.2008. The applicants challenged the framing of charges through criminal revisions, which were allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 3

25.10.2008, discharging the accused.

5. The aforesaid order dated 25.10.2008 was challenged by the complainant and the State through revisions and Government Appeal, which were heard jointly by this Court and disposed of vide judgment dated 09.09.2011, setting aside the discharge and restoring the charges. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also upheld the said order on

15.04.2013, directing trial to proceed. Meanwhile, the testamentary proceedings concluded. After detailed evidence, the Probate Court vide its final judgment dated 27.04.2016 granted Letters of Administration in favour of the Trust, holding the Trust Deed dated 10.04.1993 to be genuine.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that since the testamentary court has already adjudicated upon the genuineness of the Trust Deed, the basis of the criminal case stands negated. He further argues that the applicants, being only attesting witnesses, cannot be made accused for forgery and that the criminal case is a misuse of process to harass the applicants. He 4 would further submit that the criminal case stems from a civil dispute and should have been confined to the testamentary proceedings. Moreover, the role of an attesting witness in such a document is limited and does not attract criminal liability unless specific overt acts are alleged.

7. Learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the application, submitting that the Trust Deed was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and as per the FSL report, interpolations were found on the first page. It is stated that the applicants were summoned by the trial court after appreciation of material and therefore no interference warranted at this stage.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant would submit that the applicants have not approached this Court with clean hands. It is contended that the applicants deliberately suppressed two crucial facts firstly that the order framing of charges was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 15.04.2013 and secondly that the probate order dated 27.04.2016 was 5 stayed in appeal on 07.06.2016, much before filing of this application.

9. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 would further submit that the pendency or outcome of civil testamentary proceedings does not bar continuation of criminal proceedings, especially when a prima facie case exists. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment passed in the case of Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Others, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1428, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to pendency of parallel civil proceedings.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. It is a settled legal principle that the mere pendency of inheritance or civil disputes cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings arising out of cognizable offences.

12. In the case of Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2019) 6 SCC 107, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that mere pendency 6 of a civil suit is not a ground to quash the criminal case. In this matter, the Patna High Court had quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 323 and 379 IPC due to a pending landlord–tenant dispute. The Apex Court reversed, holding that the existence of a civil dispute does not negate the allegations in a criminal complaint.

13. In of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the mere pendency of a civil suit does not bar the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of the same set of facts. The Court emphasized that particularly at the stage of FIR or framing of charge, if a prima facie case for criminal prosecution is made out, the proceedings should not be quashed merely because parallel civil litigation is pending. The Court further observed that the existence of civil remedies does not preclude criminal liability where elements of a cognizable offence are present

14. This Court finds that the applicants failed 7 to disclose the fact that the framing of charges has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order granting probate has already been stayed in appeal. In the counter affidavit of the Investigating Officer would reveal that the FSL report prima facie supports the allegations of tampering in the alleged Trust Deed. The pendency of inheritance or civil proceedings does not provide grounds to quash criminal cases. It is admitted that the order of framing of charges have been upheld upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and further for the fact that the applicant has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands had have concealed material facts and have not disclosed prior legal proceedings.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a plethora of judgments, has consistently held that a person who conceals or suppresses material facts is not entitled to any relief. It is well settled that a person approaching the court must come with clean hands, and any attempt to mislead the court not only disentitles such a person from relief but also renders him liable for action, including contempt. 8

17. In the case of Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432, the Hon’ble Supreme Court strongly criticized the act of hiding important facts from the court. The Court observed that misleading the court is equal to committing fraud and anyone who uses fraud harms the justice system, and such actions must be strictly punished to prevent them from happening again and to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

18. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that hiding or concealing important facts is not a part of genuine legal argument amounts to misleading misrepresenting the court. The Court also stated that it has the power to dismiss such petitions to stop misuse of the legal process.

19. In the case of Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is a growing number of litigants who lie and behave unethically in court. The Court clearly stated that if someone tries to 9 misuse the justice system or comes to the court with dishonest intentions, they do not deserve any help or relief from the court.

20. In another judgment of Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash @ Pappu, (2013) 9 SCC 199, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that hiding important facts from the court is like committing fraud. The Latin phrase “Suppressio veri, expressio falsi” was used, which means hiding the truth is the same as telling a lie.

21. In the case of K. Jayaram & Others vs. Bangalore Development Authority, (2022) 12 SCC 815, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that anyone approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and disclose all relevant facts. The Court further observed that if a person hides or suppresses important information to gain an unfair advantage, it amounts to fraud on the court and the other party.

22. Since the order framing charges against the applicant has been upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and considering further that the applicant has not approached this Court with clean 10 hands, having suppressed material facts and failed to disclose prior legal proceedings before Court, thus, this Court finds the conduct of the applicant to be lacking in bona fides.

23. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present application, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

24. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated: 23.07.2025. Mamta (ALOK MAHRA, J.) 11