Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

SARDOOL SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S SMT. NASIB KAUR , decided on Tuesday, February 10, 1987.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1987 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3082 of 1986) . ] 10/02/1987
Judge(s) : B. C. RAY AND M. P. THAKKAR
Advocate(s) :
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  Vikram Versus State of Rajasthan & Another,   30/01/2015.  

  Mangla Prasad Versus State of U.P.,   07/09/2012.  

  Gujarat Pipavav Port Ltd. Versus Sharda Steel Corporation,   26/03/2012.  

  Kewin B. Ajit & Others Versus State of MP & Others,   23/01/2012.  

  A.J.K. Fernandez Versus Central Bureau of Investigation ,   14/05/2009.  

  Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & Another Versus State (Delhi Admn.) & Another ,   03/03/2009.  

  Bakshisingh S/o Sahelsingh Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ,   06/05/2008.  

  Gulfam Gazi Versus State ,   27/11/2003.  

  Shew Kishan Agarwalla Versus State,   10/10/2002.  

  Surjeet Singh Versus State,   06/11/2001.  

  Kamaladevi Agarwal Versus State of West Bengal ,   17/10/2001.  

  Jai Pal Versus Narain Singh,   15/10/1996.  

  Bhagwant Singh Versus State of Punjab,   02/02/1996.  

  Jagdish Prashad Sharma Versus C.B.I. ,   01/09/1995.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "1987 (S) SCC 146"  ==   "1987 CRLR 619B"  ==   "1987 SCC(Cri) 672"  

        1. Special leave granted. Heard both the sides2. A civil suit between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the respondent is that no Will was executed whereas the contention of the appellants is that a Will has been executed by the testator. A case for grant of probate is also pending in the court of learned District Judge Rampur. The Civil court is therefore seized of the question as regards the validity of the Will. The matter is sub judice in the aforesaid two cases in civil courts. At this juncture the respondent cannot therefore be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that the Will is a forged one. The question will have to be decided by the civil court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper to permit the respondent to prosecute the appellants on this allegation when the validity of the Will is being tested before a civil court. We therefore allow the appeal set aside the order of the High Court and quash the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Chandigarh in the case entitled Smt. Nasib Kaur v. Sardool Singh. This will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the civil court comes to the conclusion that the Will is a forged one. We of course refrain from expressing any opinion as regards genuineness or otherwise of the Will in question as there is no occasion to do so and the question is wide open before the lower courts3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.