Criminal Law Can't Be Used to Settle Property Disputes: Allahabad High Court Discharges Accused in Alleged Forged Will Case

“Where the core issue is civil in nature, invoking criminal jurisdiction amounts to abuse of process”— In a significant ruling that reinforces the judicial principle that criminal law should not be used as a weapon in civil property disputes, the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated over allegedly forged wills, holding that the matter was already sub judice in a civil suit and the complaint was motivated and malafide.

Justice Abdul Shahid, while allowing Criminal Revision No. 814 of 2025, set aside the order dated 6.1.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, framing charges against the revisionists under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, ruling that “continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law where the issues are fundamentally civil in nature.”

The Court observed:

“The proceedings appear to be an attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal trial, which the law does not permit. Such misuse must be curbed at the threshold.”

“A case dressed in criminal garb cannot override the pendency of a civil suit”

The dispute arose out of competing wills allegedly executed by Smt. Ramrati Gupta, a wealthy widow with no biological children. The complainant, Hariom Gupta, nephew of the deceased, filed an FIR in 2019 claiming that the will dated 17.03.2015, allegedly favouring the revisionists, was forged, and that a later will dated 11.01.2017 in his favour was the genuine document.

However, the Court noted that a civil suit (O.S. No. 275/2017) concerning the validity of both wills was already pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Dehat, filed much prior to the FIR.

“Until the civil court adjudicates the authenticity of the competing wills, treating one as forged amounts to pre-judging a civil dispute through criminal prosecution,” Justice Shahid noted.

The High Court further emphasized that a probate petition concerning the 2015 will had been dismissed only for default and not on merits, which left the question of its validity undecided.

“Framing charges without expert evidence and relying only on one-sided statements shows complete non-application of mind”

A key grievance of the revisionists was that the investigating officer failed to obtain forensic verification of either will or handwriting, nor did he seek expert opinion. Instead, the IO arbitrarily accepted the 2017 will as genuine, relying merely on the complainant’s assertions, and labelled the earlier 2015 will as forged.

“No charge under Sections 467 or 468 IPC can be sustained unless there is prima facie material indicating forgery of a genuine document, which is absent here,” the Court held.

Moreover, the revision petition also pointed out that medical records showed that Ramrati Gupta was gravely ill and undergoing dialysis at the time the 2017 will was allegedly executed—calling into question her capacity to execute a thumb-marked testament.

“Naming a dead man in the FIR is the final proof of malice and harassment”

In a telling detail that weighed heavily against the prosecution, one of the accused persons—Shamsher Singh Yadav—was named in the FIR filed in October 2019, despite having passed away in March 2019.

The Court held:

“The act of including a deceased person in the criminal complaint reveals a mala fide intent to harass and abuse the criminal process.”

Such conduct, it observed, "further fortifies the defence narrative of this being a retaliatory FIR meant to pressurize the opposing parties in the civil suit."

The Court also applied the logic of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, stating that framing of charges is not merely an interlocutory stage, and High Courts have power under Section 397 and 401 CrPC to prevent abuse of process where a prima facie case is absent.

“Power of criminal court is not to settle property disputes—it is to punish crimes”

Concluding that the complaint was a civil dispute disguised as a criminal offence, the High Court held:

“Until the civil court pronounces upon the authenticity of the two wills, proceeding under criminal law is premature and unjustified.”

Accordingly, the High Court discharged the revisionists from the case but clarified that the trial may continue against co-accused Sushil Narula as per law.

Civil law takes precedence—Criminal courts are not to be misused for private vengeance

This decision marks an important reiteration of the boundary between civil and criminal law, especially in the sensitive area of property disputes arising out of testamentary documents. It serves as a reminder to litigants and law enforcement alike that civil remedies cannot be substituted with criminal prosecutions, especially where intention to defraud is not clearly established, and the matter is already under adjudication in a civil forum.

Date of Decision: 21 November 2025