Case Note & Summary
The proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, concerned an Interim Application No. 1809 of 2024 filed under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by Hoshang Jehangir Khan and Rashna Hoshang Khan, the executors named in the last will and testament dated 18 December 2015 and four codicils of the deceased Hilla Homi Dady. The application sought an inquiry into alleged forgery by the caveator Khushroo Behramshaw Mogal, who had filed a caveat in the pending testamentary petition, relying on an alleged later will dated 23 March 2023, claiming to be sole beneficiary of a portion of the estate, including a prime property at Kemps Corner, Mumbai. The executors had filed Testamentary Petition No. 3908 of 2023 on 17 October 2023 seeking probate of the genuine will and codicils. The sole surviving legal heir, the son of the deceased's brother, consented by affidavit dated 26 July 2023. On 19 December 2023, the additional Registrar directed issuance of a general citation. The petition was listed on 15 March 2024 for grant of probate. On 14 March 2024, the caveator e-filed a caveat with an affidavit in support dated 12 March 2024, enclosing the alleged will. The applicants alleged that the will was forged and fabricated, pointing to numerous facts: the signature did not match the deceased's known signatures; the caveator had no caveatable interest as he was neither an heir nor a relative; the deceased's genuine testamentary documents did not mention the caveator or his father; the caveator surfaced only after citation was published; and the alleged will contained internal inconsistencies, including verbatim copying of property description from the 2015 will and typographical errors inconsistent with the deceased's education and literacy. The applicants also alleged that the caveator had a criminal disposition, citing written statements by his own family members describing him as mischievous and habitually attempting extortion. The legal issues were whether the caveator committed offences under Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by forging and using a forged will, and whether an inquiry should be conducted under Section 340 CrPC. The applicants argued that the forgery was prima facie evident and relied on State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh. No arguments from the caveator were included in the provided text. The court heard senior counsel for the applicants, reserved judgment on 17 July 2025, and pronounced on 14 August 2025. However, the provided text ends at paragraph 20 before the court's reasoning and final decision, so no analysis or operative order is available. Therefore, the final decision and ratio decidendi are not mentioned in the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Application under Section 340 CrPC - Section 340 read with Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - The applicants, who are executors in a pending testamentary petition, filed an interim application seeking an inquiry into alleged forgery of a will by the caveator; they contended that the caveator had filed a forged will dated 23 March 2023 through a caveat and affidavit, and prayed that the application be allowed in terms of prayer clause A or B as deemed fit. (Paras 1, 4, 18-19) B) Indian Penal Code - Forgery - Sections 463, 464, 465, 467 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The applicants alleged that the caveator fabricated the purported will with a forged signature, knowing it to be false, and produced it to claim a share in the deceased's estate; they pointed out discrepancies such as the signature not matching, lack of any relation to the deceased, and absence of mention in earlier testamentary documents. (Paras 10-16) C) Indian Penal Code - Using Forged Document - Section 471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The applicants submitted that the caveator fraudulently and dishonestly used the forged will dated 23 March 2023 as genuine, despite knowing it to be forged and fabricated, thereby committing an offence under Section 471 IPC. (Para 17) D) Succession Law - Caveatable Interest - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - The applicants contended that the caveator had no caveatable interest because he was neither an heir nor a relative of the deceased, and therefore could not lawfully oppose the probate; this was evident from the alleged will itself. (Para 11(b)) E) Evidence - Proof of Forgery - Comparison of Signatures and Internal Inconsistencies - The applicants argued that a mere comparison of the signature on the alleged will with the signatures on the four codicils showed they did not match, that the description of the Kemps Corner bungalow was lifted verbatim from the 2015 will, and that the alleged will contained typographical and grammatical errors inconsistent with the deceased's education and attention to detail. (Paras 11(j), 11(s), 11(u))
Issue of Consideration
Whether the caveator committed offences of forgery and using forged document under the Indian Penal Code by filing a forged will in probate proceedings, and whether an inquiry should be conducted under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC provides for inquiry into offences affecting administration of justice
- Forgery under IPC Sections 463
- 464
- 465
- 467
- 471
- Non-heir lacks caveatable interest under Indian Succession Act
- 1925
- Using forged document as genuine constitutes offence under Section 471 IPC
