ET OnlineSon alleged aunt and late grandmother forged his late father’s Will to keep him out of the property inheritance; Delhi HC allows son’s case of police investigation of Will forgery (AI generated representative image)
On January 15, 2026, the Delhi High Court decided to let a criminal case of Will forgery involving a son and his mother proceed against his late grandmother and aunt. The son and mother said that his late father deeply cared for him, and under pressure from his grandmother and aunt, he (the father) had filed for divorce from his motherwhich included accusations of cruelty against his mother, that he (father) neither believed nor wanted to pursue.
Income Tax Guide
Income Tax Union Budget FY 2026-27 LiveIncome Tax Slabs FY 2025-26Income Tax Calculator 2025
His aunt informed the court that after his (son’s) mother left the matrimonial home, his father suffered severe business losses and also met with a major accident. Despite these challenges, she (his mother) filed a complaint against him before the CAW Cell, which upon inquiry, was found to be false and closed. Following this, the father continued to live with the grandmother and aunt who took care of him.
The son said that contrary to his aunt and late grandmother’s assertion, his father was a heart patient suffering from diabetes, and was receiving regular medical treatment. He was admitted to Escorts Hospital in 2008 and ultimately passed away from these health issues on May 22, 2013 at Max Hospital in Indraprastha Extension, Delhi.
The aunt also told the court that when his father was still alive, he executed a Will on April 29, 2011, which was registered on May 4, 2011 in the office of the Sub-Registrar VII, LM Bundh Office Complex, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. There was also a witness to this will.
Therefore, his aunt said that since his wife and son were living separately and had neglected him, the father had excluded them from all his movable and immovable properties leaving everything to his grandmother and aunt.
His father died on May 22, 2013 and aunt and grandmother filed the probate of Will case in court on February 5, 2014. His mother was arrayed as respondents in the Probate of Will case. This case is pending.
The son told the court that his father owned a property in Paschim Vihar, Delhi which he had inherited through a separate Will dated November 11, 1974. However during the ongoing probate of his father’s Will, his late grandmother and aunt did not disclose this property. The son said that his father applied for mutation and conversion of this property to freehold before the DDA, but his uncle is opposing it on false grounds and is currently occupying the property illegally.
The son also told the court that his father had a bank account with Bank of India, which was not disclosed by his grandmother and aunt in the ongoing probate of Will case. The son said that this raises serious suspicion as neither the late grandmother nor the aunt disclosed the Paschim Vihar property or the Bank of India account in the current probate proceedings.
The son also alleged that his late father’s Will produced by his late grandmother and aunt does not bear his father’s genuine signatures or thumb impression. The son said that the forgery is evident as the photograph affixed on the alleged Will, is an one from around May 2004, whereas the Will is claimed to have been executed and registered on April 29, 2011.
The same photograph had earlier been submitted by his father to the DDA along with his specimen signatures in 2004. The son said that his father’s Voter ID (issued on January 1, 2005) and PAN Card submitted in 2009 show him to be much older than the person shown in the photograph on the alleged Will. The son said that due to chronic illness, his father looked significantly older and frail by 2011.
His aunt told the court that his objection regarding comparison of signatures from 2004 with those on the Will dated April 29, 2011 is unfounded, since Delhi High Court in the ongoing probate of will case, expressly permitted such comparison. Therefore, the aunt argued that since he did not oppose the application at the relevant time, he can’t now dispute the age of the specimen signatures.
The son had also hired a private third party handwriting expert to check the genuineness of his late father’s signature on the will. The handwriting expert said in his report on December 10, 2023 that there is a mismatch in signature.
His aunt told the court that he has only relied on the opinion of a privately appointed handwriting expert. It is settled law that expert opinion is only advisory and not conclusive.
The aunt also said that even otherwise, the signatures for comparison were taken from DDA records for 2004, whereas the Will is from 2011. She argued that the nearly seven-year gap renders such comparison unreliable and undermines the expert opinion.
His aunt further submitted before the court that the handwriting expert’s report dated December 10, 2023 is a managed and self-serving document obtained by him. She also told the court that the evidence of the private handwriting expert has not been recorded in the Probate of will proceedings and thus his report lacks evidentiary value.
On January 15, 2026 the son won the case in Delhi High Court. He won the right to continue the police criminal investigation into will forgery. While his aunt failed to stop the FIR, the Will’s validity is still undecided.
Also read: Brothers can’t rewrite father’s will after mother’s death, rules HC, preserves daughters’ share in ancestral property
The Delhi High Court said that while in the probate proceedings, the genuineness of the Will has to be tested on the anvil of Section 68 Indian Succession Act, in accordance with Section 65 Indian evidence Act, and even if signatures are found to be genuine, it may still be invalidated.
The Delhi High Court also said that the allegations of forgery and use of a forged document as genuine, are distinct offences under the Penal Code and if established, attract penal consequences independent of the outcome of the probate of Will proceedings.
Also read: Tenants sold property bought from landlord’s wife on the basis of a Will, son raised disputes against Will; Delhi HC stays property sale till final trial
Summary of the judgement
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by aunt seeking quashing of an FIR registered against her for alleged forgery of her late brother’s (his father) Will. The Court held that no ground was made out to interfere with the criminal investigation at this preliminary stage.
The high court observed that the core allegation raised by the son was that the registered Will dated April 29, 2011 under which everything his father owned was bequeathed to his grandmother and aunt was forged and fabricated.
Although probate proceedings regarding the Will have been pending since 2014, the high court emphasised that the pendency of civil or probate proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution where allegations disclose the ingredients of cognisable offences such as forgery, impersonation, or use of forged documents.
The high court also relied on Supreme Court judgements and said that the standard of proof and objectives in civil and criminal cases are different since both of them operate in distinct spheres. Thus the probate of will continues as a civil case deciding the validity of the will. The allegations of will forgery needs investigation under criminal law.
The Delhi High Court said: “No mini trial can be conducted to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the handwriting expert’s opinion, nor can it return any finding on the genuineness of the Will. Those issues are matters of investigation to be tested during the course of criminal investigation.”
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court refused to quash the FIR, clarified that no opinion was being expressed on the genuineness of the Will, and left all issues to be determined during investigation and trial.
Also read: SC dismisses property inheritance case as key witness disowns will, orders natural Hindu succession to apply after mother’s death
Sachin Bhandawat, Partner at Khaitan & Co, said to ET Wealth Online: This judgment highlights a very important principle of law for the common man – that a civil wrong may also have criminal consequences.
Bhandawat says: “While a probate proceeding is a civil process that looks into the authenticity of a Will, if a party challenging a Will alleges forgery, then there are also independent criminal proceedings that can be instituted. The Delhi High Court justifiably observes that civil and criminal proceedings can progress in a parallel manner – even though both proceedings can be ultimately concerned with the authenticity of a Will.”
Delhi High Court analysis and discussion
The Delhi High Court in this judgement (case no. W.P. CRL. 2202/2024) said that the core issue for determination is whether the MM (metropolitan magistrate) was justified in directing registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC?
FIR investigation of Will forgery can continue parallel to probate of will case
The Delhi High Court said that this question of whether the FIR can be registered in case where the challenge to the genuineness of the Will is pending consideration in Probate proceedings, was addressed in the case of Sardool Singh vs. Nasib Kaur, 1987 SCC (Cri) 672 judgement.
This aspect was again considered by the Supreme Court in Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal, (2002) 1 SCC 555 judgement. In the judgement of Syed Askari Haid Ali Augustine Iman and Another vs. State (Delhi Administration) and Another, (2009) 5 SCC 528 this issue was considered. The law on the permissibility of parallel civil and criminal proceedings is now well settled and has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in a recent case of Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors., 2025 INSC 818.
Similarly, in the most recent decision, the Supreme Court in C.S. Prasad vs. C. Satyakumar and Ors., 2026 INSC 39 case, while referring to Neeharika Infrastructure, (supra) and Kathyayini, (supra), reaffirmed that adjudication in civil matters and criminal prosecution proceed on different principles.
The Delhi High Court said that to sum up, what emerges is that it is a settled position of law that the ingredients required to be established in civil proceedings and criminal proceedings, even when arising from the same transaction, operate in distinct spheres.
In civil proceedings, the court is primarily concerned with the validity, enforceability of a document, to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In contrast, criminal law is attracted only where the allegations disclose the requisite mens rea and the commission of an offence beyond the civil consequences of the act.
The Delhi High Court said: “The threshold in criminal law is necessarily higher, as the court is required to examine whether the act complained of was accompanied by dishonest intent since the inception.”
The Delhi High Court observed that forgery, fabrication of documents and their use for wrongful gain are therefore, not mere matters of civil invalidity but constitute independent offences under the criminal law.
The Delhi High Court said: “Hence, civil adjudication regarding the validity of a document cannot preclude criminal prosecution where the ingredients of offences (such as forgery herein) are prima facie disclosed, as the two remedies differ in their objective, scope and standard of proof.”
Case law cited: State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Delhi High Court applies directions laid down by Supreme Court
The Delhi High Court said that the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure judgement had cautioned that courts must not stifle legitimate investigation at the threshold and that quashing should be an exception, exercised sparingly, only where the complaint or FIR does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The Court had issued many directions to the High Courts to be kept in mind while exercising the power under Section 482 CrPC.
The Delhi High Court said that applying the said principle to the present case, the Probate proceedings had been initiated by the Petitioners vide Test Case No.12/2014. Respondent No.2/Complainant (the son) has been contesting the genuineness of the Will since the Written Statement was filed in 2014 itself.
Thereafter, pursuant to the Order dated 01.08.2023 permitting comparison of signatures, Respondent No.2 (the son) got a private Handwriting Expert’s Report dated 10.12.2023, following his Application under Section 45 Evidence Act was filed in 2014, which was allowed.
The registration of the FIR in 2024 followed the directions of the MM (metropolitan magistrate), who relied on this expert report and observed that there were allegations that the accused persons, in conspiracy with each other, had prepared forged Will and got that registered.
The Delhi High Court said that furthermore, it was rightly observed that a detailed police investigation was required for unearthing the truth of the allegations made by the complainant, including the collection and examination of forged Will and the admitted signatures of the father of the complainant.
Since, the facts narrated disclosed prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, FIR was directed to be registered.
The Delhi High Court said: “Thus, merely because the issue of validity of the Will is subject matter of civil and probate proceedings, this by itself, cannot be a ground to stall the criminal process at the threshold, particularly when the allegations disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences requiring investigation.”
The Delhi High Court also said that no mini trial can be conducted to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the handwriting expert’s opinion, nor can it return any finding on the genuineness of the Will.
The Delhi High Court said: “Those issues are matters of investigation to be tested during the course of criminal investigation.”
The Delhi High Court said that to accept the contention of the petitioner (aunt), would tantamount to considering the FIR as an encyclopaedia of all the relevant evidence, as observed in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure.
The Delhi High Court said: “In fact, FIR is only the commencement point and if the allegations are not substantiated, it would be so concluded after investigations.”
The Delhi High Court said that the submission of the Petitioner (aunt) that the dispute is purely civil in nature, cannot be accepted at this stage.
Probate of Will and Forgery of Will case are different
The Delhi High Court said: “While in the probate proceedings, the genuineness of the Will has to be tested on the anvil of Section 68 Indian Succession Act, in accordance with Section 65 Indian evidence Act, and even if signatures are found to be genuine, it may still be invalidated; the allegations of forgery and use of a forged document as genuine, are distinct offences under the Penal Code and if established, attract penal consequences independent of the outcome of the probate proceedings.
Case law cited
The Delhi High Court said that reference be also made to M.S. Sheriff & Anr. vs. State of Madras & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 397, referred in Syed Askari Haid Ali Augustine Iman, wherein the Supreme Court held that “as between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence”, observing that “a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime.
The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things glide till memories have grown too dim to trust.”
Delhi High Court Judgement: In light of the above discussion, it is held that there exists no ground for quashing the FIR at this initial stage. There is no merit in the present Petition, which is hereby, dismissed. The pending Applications also stand disposed of.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 