Full Text
Translation output
i $--2,3 &5 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.223/2016
RAJINDER GHOGRA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Dhan Mohan,Advocate
BAIL APPLN.223/2016
RAJINDER GHOGRA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Dhan Mohan,Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent
Through Ms.Neelam Sharma,APP for the State Mr.KB Upadhyay,Advocate for the
Complainant.
Through Ms.Neelam Sharma,APP for the State Mr.KB Upadhyay,Advocate for the
Complainant.
BAIL APPLN.768/2016
PANKAJ KUMAR VERMA Petitioner
Through Mr.M S Ahluwalia,Advocate
PANKAJ KUMAR VERMA Petitioner
Through Mr.M S Ahluwalia,Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF NOT OF DELHI& ANR Respondents
Through Ms.Neelam Sharma,APPforthe State Mr.KB Upadhyay,Advocate forthe
Complainant
Through Ms.Neelam Sharma,APPforthe State Mr.KB Upadhyay,Advocate forthe
Complainant
BAIL APPLN.1226/2016
MUKESHSOOD Petitioner
Through Mr.M S Ahluwalia,Advocate
MUKESHSOOD Petitioner
Through Mr.M S Ahluwalia,Advocate
VERSUS
STATE OF NOT OFDELHI&ANR •••• Respondents
Through Ms.Neelam Sharma,APPforthe State Mr.KB Upadhyay,Advocate for the
Complainant
Through Ms.Neelam Sharma,APPforthe State Mr.KB Upadhyay,Advocate for the
Complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.PATHAK
ORDER o/o 26.07.2016 Complainants are the mother, wife, daughter of Late Faiz Murtaza
Ali. OneRohini Wahi@Ruhani Aliclaimed herselfto bethe second wife
2016:DHC:8267 of Late Faiz Murtaza AH and has propounded a Will dated 14.04.2013 of
Late Faiz Murtaza Ali.
It has been admitted during the course ofhearing by the counsel for the complainant as well as learned APP that various civil litigations are pending between the complainants and Ruhani Ali in Palampur Court and
Saket Courts,Delhi.
The complainants have also filed a suit for declaration under Saket . f Court, Delhi, praying therein that the said Will be declared null and void being a forged document. It has also been admitted that none of the petitioners are beneficiaries inthe Will.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Rajinder
Ghogra was the Advocate of Late Faiz Murtaza Ali, who had executed
Vakalatnama in favour of Rajinder Ghogra in some of the litigations.
Rajinder Ghogra was not a stranger to Late Faiz Murtaza Ali, as has been projected in the investigation.
It is further submitted that Rajinder Ghogra had drafted the Will on the instructions ofLate Faiz Murtaza Ali, during his lifetime. Petitioners
Mukesh Sood and Pankaj Kumar Verma are merely witnesses and they do not derive any benefit under the Will in respect ofany ofthe movable or immovable propertiesofLateFaizMurtaza Ali.
It is further submitted that on 14.04.2013, when the Will was executed.Late FaizMurtaza Ali was alive. He died on 20.06.2013. After his death,disputes have arisen between his wives and children with which petitioners have nothing to do. He further submits that similar complaint wasfiled by Sehar AliinDistrictKangra,HimachalPradesh,whereinit was specifically alleged that the Will in question was a forged and fabricated document.
Learned APP for the State submits that signatures of Late Faiz
Murtaza Ali on the Will have been compared with his other signatures and as per FSL signature on the Will does not match with the signature as appearing in other pages. The matter was inquired by the SSP of District
Kangra,H.P.,but no action was taken. On the basis ofa similar complaint, action has been taken by the Delhi Police under the influence of complainants,eventhough ithas nojurisdiction.
Keepingin viewtheabovefacts,itisorderedthatincaseofarrest,the petitionersbereleasedon bailontheirfurnishingapersonalbondinthesum of?25,000/-each with one surety each inthelike amounttothe satisfaction ofArresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.
The applications are disposed of. a.i^^a™ak,j
JULY 26,2016 P
ORDER o/o 26.07.2016 Complainants are the mother, wife, daughter of Late Faiz Murtaza
Ali. OneRohini Wahi@Ruhani Aliclaimed herselfto bethe second wife
2016:DHC:8267 of Late Faiz Murtaza AH and has propounded a Will dated 14.04.2013 of
Late Faiz Murtaza Ali.
It has been admitted during the course ofhearing by the counsel for the complainant as well as learned APP that various civil litigations are pending between the complainants and Ruhani Ali in Palampur Court and
Saket Courts,Delhi.
The complainants have also filed a suit for declaration under Saket . f Court, Delhi, praying therein that the said Will be declared null and void being a forged document. It has also been admitted that none of the petitioners are beneficiaries inthe Will.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Rajinder
Ghogra was the Advocate of Late Faiz Murtaza Ali, who had executed
Vakalatnama in favour of Rajinder Ghogra in some of the litigations.
Rajinder Ghogra was not a stranger to Late Faiz Murtaza Ali, as has been projected in the investigation.
It is further submitted that Rajinder Ghogra had drafted the Will on the instructions ofLate Faiz Murtaza Ali, during his lifetime. Petitioners
Mukesh Sood and Pankaj Kumar Verma are merely witnesses and they do not derive any benefit under the Will in respect ofany ofthe movable or immovable propertiesofLateFaizMurtaza Ali.
It is further submitted that on 14.04.2013, when the Will was executed.Late FaizMurtaza Ali was alive. He died on 20.06.2013. After his death,disputes have arisen between his wives and children with which petitioners have nothing to do. He further submits that similar complaint wasfiled by Sehar AliinDistrictKangra,HimachalPradesh,whereinit was specifically alleged that the Will in question was a forged and fabricated document.
Learned APP for the State submits that signatures of Late Faiz
Murtaza Ali on the Will have been compared with his other signatures and as per FSL signature on the Will does not match with the signature as appearing in other pages. The matter was inquired by the SSP of District
Kangra,H.P.,but no action was taken. On the basis ofa similar complaint, action has been taken by the Delhi Police under the influence of complainants,eventhough ithas nojurisdiction.
Keepingin viewtheabovefacts,itisorderedthatincaseofarrest,the petitionersbereleasedon bailontheirfurnishingapersonalbondinthesum of?25,000/-each with one surety each inthelike amounttothe satisfaction ofArresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.
The applications are disposed of. a.i^^a™ak,j
JULY 26,2016 P
JUDGMENT