Pradeep Gupta vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors 2026 DHC 1086
Synopsis
The present judgment addresses the conflict between the continuation of civil probate proceedings and the requirements of a parallel criminal investigation into allegations of forgery of the same Will. The Investigating Officer sought release of the original Will, deposited in the sealed custody of the Court, for forensic examination. The petitioner—propounder of the Will and accused in the FIR—opposed such release, contending that the Will ought to remain in the Court's custody and that the investigation could be facilitated through inspection and photography within the Court premises. Relying on the settled principle that criminal proceedings enjoy primacy over civil proceedings and that an accused cannot dictate the course of investigation, the High Court allowed the application. It directed release of the original Will to the Investigating Officer subject to stringent safeguards: preparation of four certified copies, distribution thereof to the parties, and mandatory return of the original upon receipt of the forensic report. The judgment reconciles the competing demands of judicial custody and investigative necessity while preserving the integrity of both the civil and criminal processes.
2026:DHC:1086
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna (Single Judge)
Judgment Delivered on: February 10, 2026
Proceedings: I.A. No. 27378/2025 (filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) in Testamentary Case (Petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925)
Neutral Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1086
1. Legal Framework
1.1. Statutes and Provisions Interpreted
Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 276: Petition for grant of Letter of Administration.
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – Sections 336(2), 338, 339, 340(2) and 3(5): Offences of forgery, cheating, and use of forged documents.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 151: Inherent powers of the Court (invoked by the Investigating Officer).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173(8) (referred to in precedent): Power of further investigation.
1.2. Precedents Relied Upon
A. Supreme Court Judgments
Narender G. Goyal v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 65
– The accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation; cannot direct the manner in which investigation is to be conducted.Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & Anr. v. State (Delhi Administration) & Anr., (2009) 5 SCC 528
– Criminal proceedings ordinarily have primacy over civil proceedings; both proceed on different principles.Lakshmi & Anr. v. Chinnamal Alias Rayyammal & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 25
– Where civil and criminal proceedings are pending, the latter shall get primacy.C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 50
– Civil adjudication does not determine criminal intent; criminal liability must be examined independently. Pendency of civil proceedings does not warrant quashing of criminal prosecution.
B. High Court Judgments
Sama Piyushbhai Shah v. Madanlal Hastimal Rathi, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 5842
– When allegations of forgery exist, the court can hand over the original document in its custody to the Investigating Officer for forensic examination; affirmed by the Supreme Court on 4 May 2020 in SLP (Diary) No. 7495/2020.Sanjeev Kumar Mittal v. State, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4006
– Distinguished: This case pertained to criminal contempt and investigation directed by the Court; not applicable to release of a Will to the police in a pending probate proceeding.
2. Factual Background
2.1. Testamentary Proceedings
The petitioner, Sh. Pradeep Gupta, son of Late Sh. Jagdish Pershad Gupta, filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking grant of Letters of Administration in respect of a Will dated 22 November 2024. The testator expired on 11 January 2025. The respondent No. 2 (sister of the petitioner) filed objections alleging that the Will propounded by her brother was forged and fabricated.
2.2. Criminal Proceedings
Pursuant to the complaint of forgery, FIR No. 311 of 2025 was registered on 16 September 2025 at Police Station, Saket, New Delhi, under Sections 336(2), 338, 339, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner filed W.P.(Crl.) 3310/2025 seeking quashing of the FIR. By order dated 9 October 2025, this Court directed the petitioner to join the investigation and granted protection from coercive action subject to such cooperation.
2.3. Custody of the Will
By order dated 4 August 2025, this Court directed that the original Will be deposited in the Registry and kept in a sealed cover.
2.4. The Contested Application
The Investigating Officer, Sh. Rahul Lamba, filed I.A. No. 27378/2025 seeking release of the original Will for the purpose of forensic examination (FSL analysis) to verify the genuineness of the testator's signatures.
3. Submissions of the Parties
3.1. Petitioner’s Contentions
Conditional consent: Willing to permit forensic examination provided the Will remains in the custody of the Court.
Parity: Relied on order dated 7 August 2025 wherein this Court allowed respondent No. 2’s private forensic expert to examine the Will within the Court premises and take photographs.
Precedent: Cited Sanjeev Kumar Mittal (supra) to argue that the Investigating Officer could inspect the Court file and obtain photocopies without removal of the original.
Stay of civil proceedings: Contended that handing over custody to the police would virtually stay the probate proceedings, contrary to law.
Pending application: I.A. No. 23830/2025 filed by the petitioner for similar expert examination was pending.
3.2. Respondents’ Contentions
Obstruction to investigation: The petitioner’s objections amount to an impermissible hurdle to the statutory investigation.
Independence of proceedings: Civil proceedings can continue concurrently; there is no legal bar to releasing the document for investigation.
Parity distinguished: The order dated 7 August 2025 was passed in the context of a private party and is inapplicable to a request by a statutory investigating agency.
4. Issues for Determination
Whether the Investigating Officer investigating a complaint of forgery of a Will can be handed over the original Will which is lying in the sealed custody of this Court in pending probate proceedings.
Whether the objections raised by the petitioner (accused in the FIR) can preclude the Court from releasing the document to the investigating agency.
What safeguards, if any, must be instituted to balance the rights of the parties and the integrity of both civil and criminal proceedings.
5. Ratio Decidendi: Reasoning of the Court
5.1. Accused Cannot Obstruct or Direct Investigation
The Court emphatically held that a person against whom an investigation is being carried out cannot be allowed to obstruct the investigation in any manner whatsoever. Following Narender G. Goyal (supra), the Court observed that the accused only possesses the right to assail the validity of evidence during trial and has no right to plead or direct the manner in which investigation is carried out.
5.2. Primacy of Criminal Proceedings Over Civil Proceedings
Adopting the consistent view of the Supreme Court, the High Court held that criminal proceedings will have primacy over civil proceedings emanating from the same set of facts. The Court observed:
“The pending probate case does not bar parallel criminal proceedings regarding the alleged forgery of the Will.”
Relying on C.S. Prasad (supra), the Court held that civil adjudication does not record findings on criminal intent (forgery, cheating) and therefore criminal liability must be examined independently.
5.3. Necessity of Original Document for Forensic Examination
Where the entire controversy revolves around the forgery of a Will, it is necessary for the Investigating Officer to obtain the original document for FSL examination. If the original is withheld, the investigation would remain incomplete.
5.4. Distinction Between Private Expert and Investigating Agency
The order dated 7 August 2025 permitting respondent No. 2’s private forensic expert to examine the Will within the Court was passed in a different context. The Court clarified:
“This Court would not have directed release of the original Will to a private party.”
Thus, the request of a statutory investigating agency stands on a distinct footing and parity is not applicable.
5.5. Safeguards to Protect the Interests of Parties
While directing release of the original Will, the Court addressed the petitioner’s apprehension regarding tampering and prejudice to civil proceedings by adopting the procedural framework laid down in Sama Piyushbhai Shah (supra):
Four certified copies of the original Will shall be prepared by the Registry.
Distribution: One copy to be retained in the Registry; one copy each to be furnished to the counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2, and respondent No. 3.
Return of original: The Investigating Officer shall return the original Will to this Court immediately upon receipt of the forensic report, whereupon it shall be placed in a sealed cover in the Registry.
This mechanism ensures that the probate proceedings can continue unhindered and that the integrity of the original document is preserved.
6. Legal Principles Reaffirmed and Established
While the judgment does not create new substantive law, it serves as a significant procedural precedent that:
Criminal Primacy in Concurrent Proceedings
– Where civil and criminal proceedings arise from the same disputed document, the criminal investigation must not be stalled by the pendency of civil litigation.Duty of the Civil Court to Facilitate Investigation
– A court in whose custody a disputed document lies is empowered, and may be duty-bound, to hand over the original document to the investigating agency, provided adequate safeguards are put in place.Distinction Between Private and Statutory Requests
– Private forensic examination may be permitted within the Court premises without releasing custody; a statutory request for investigation may warrant release of the original document from Court custody.Model Procedure for Balancing Competing Interests
– The certified copy mechanism provides a template for courts to adopt when faced with competing demands between civil evidentiary custody and criminal investigative needs.
7. Analysis and Examination by the Court
7.1. Conceptual Framework
The Court undertook a three‑tiered analysis:
Status of the applicant: A statutory investigating officer discharging sovereign functions stands on a higher footing than a private litigant seeking evidentiary advantage.
Stage of proceedings: Investigation was ongoing pursuant to judicial orders; withholding the document would frustrate the statutory investigation.
Prejudice calculus:
– Prejudice to the petitioner: addressed by certified copies and the mandatory return condition.
– Prejudice to respondent No. 2 (complainant): addressed by facilitating the investigation.
– Prejudice to the Court’s custody: temporary, with a binding obligation to return.
7.2. Doctrinal Alignment
The judgment aligns with the doctrine of separation of proceedings (civil and criminal) and the principle of non‑obstruction of investigation. It correctly refrains from conflating evidentiary appreciation in civil proceedings with forensic investigation in criminal proceedings.
7.3. Handling of Precedents
The Court demonstrated judicial discipline by:
Following binding Supreme Court precedents.
Adopting the reasoning of Sama Piyushbhai Shah (supra), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Distinguishing its own earlier order and Sanjeev Kumar Mittal (supra) on facts, thereby avoiding any contradiction.
8. Critical Analysis
8.1. Strengths of the Judgment
Procedural clarity: Provides a clear, step‑by‑step mechanism for handling such applications, removing ambiguity for Registry officials and litigants.
Balanced approach: Grants the Investigating Officer’s prayer while safeguarding the petitioner’s legitimate concerns through the certified copy safeguard.
Judicial economy: Disposes of the interlocutory application with specific directions, preventing prolonged litigation.
Precedent‑conscious: Meticulously engages with relevant case law and correctly distinguishes inapplicable precedents.
8.2. Observations and Nuances
Nature of “primacy”: The Court applies the principle of primacy of criminal proceedings in the context of non‑stay of investigation. It explicitly states that civil proceedings are not stayed but continue concurrently. This nuanced application is doctrinally sound.
Reliance on C.S. Prasad: At the time of this judgment, C.S. Prasad was a very recent Supreme Court decision (delivered in January 2026). Its immediate application demonstrates the High Court’s responsiveness to current constitutional jurisprudence.
Scope of Section 151 CPC: The application was filed under the inherent powers of the Court. While the judgment does not dwell on whether a specific provision under the Succession Act or the Criminal Code would be more appropriate, invocation of inherent powers is justified given the urgent and interlocutory nature of the dispute.
8.3. Comparative Consistency
The judgment brings the practice of the Delhi High Court in line with the Gujarat High Court’s view in Sama Piyushbhai Shah, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. This promotes uniformity in judicial approach across High Courts on a recurring procedural issue.
9. Final Outcome and Operative Directions
The Court allowed I.A. No. 27378/2025 filed by the Investigating Officer and directed as follows:
The original Will dated 22 November 2024, lying in sealed cover in the Registry of this Court, shall be released to the Investigating Officer forthwith for forensic examination.
Before release, the Registry shall prepare four certified copies of the original Will.
One certified copy shall be retained in the custody of the Registry; one certified copy each shall be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2, and respondent No. 3.
Upon receipt of the forensic report, the Investigating Officer shall immediately return the original Will to this Court, whereupon it shall be placed in safe custody of the Registry in a sealed cover.
Disposal: I.A. No. 27378/2025 and I.A. No. 543/2026 were disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Order pronounced in open Court on this 10th day of February, 2026.
– MINI PUSHKARNA, J.