S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) ON a complaint made by Suresh Dubash and Mrs. Meher Rustamji Dubash, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur vide her order sheet dated 8-10-1985 passed in Criminal Case No. 5018 of 1985 took cognizance of an offence under section 418 of the Indian Penal Code against two of their close relations namely Sorabji N. Dubash and D. M. Bharucha and directed issue of process against them. It is being aggrieved by it that the two accused have filed the present petition in this Court for quashing the proceedings and dismissing the complaint made against them. ( 2 ) AS mentioned above, the complainant party and the accused party are related to one another quite closely. The following genealogical table will be of help in understanding the exact relationship between them: Nasarwanji Dubash (died 2-5-1972) widow Tahmina Nasarwanji (died 12-5-1983) I I I I I Manekji Jamshedji Sorabji Rustamji N. Mrs. Mary Dubash N. Dubash N. Dubash Dubash (son) D. Bharucha (son) (son) (son) (died 13-6-1977) (daughter) (accused No. 1) widow Mehar (died 21-6-1982) Rustamji Dubash has been (Complainant no. 2) D. M. Bharucha I (accused no. 2) Suresh Dubash I (son) Miss Bati (Complainant no. 1) Bharucha (daughter ). ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the head of the abovesaid Parsi family i. e. Nasarwanji Dubash had been a resident of Kanti town and he had during his life-time acquired lot of immovable properties including one bearing municipal nos. 148 and 149 situated in Napier Town Ward of Jabalpur city. It is with this property situated in Napier Town of Jabalpur city that we are concerned in the present case. ( 4 ) IT is common ground that long before his death in 1972 Nasarwanji Dubash had executed a will on 6-12-1961 wherein he had made bequests of all the immovable properties owned by him to his wife, sons, daughter and other close relations. We are not concerned in the present case with the question as to which particular immovable property was to go to which of his relations under the said will. It is sufficient for our present purpose to know that the above said property situated in Napier Town of Jabalpur city was to go to his wife Smt. Tahmina Nasarwanji under the said will. It is sufficient for our present purpose to know that the above said property situated in Napier Town of Jabalpur city was to go to his wife Smt. Tahmina Nasarwanji under the said will. ( 5 ) NOW, it is apparent from the documents produced in the case that Nasarwanji had disclosed that contents of his above said will dated 6-12-1961 to his wife Tahmina on the date of the making of the said will itself. It is of significance that his wife Tahmina too executed a will on the same day i. e. 6-12-1961 in which apart from giving the moveable properties owned by her to her sons, daughter and other relations, she made a bequest of the above mentioned properties situated in Napier Town Ward of Jabalpur city to her daughter Mary, wife of accused D. M. Bharucha, in the following words My husband Nasarwanji Manakji Dubash has be quested to me ill his will immovable property consisting of a bungalow at Jabalpur bearing municipal nos. 148 and 149 together with one cooli quarter attached thereto and if I should inherit the same from my husband Nasarwanji bequeath the same to my daughter Marry, wife of Dossabhoy Maneksha Bharucha for her absolute use and benefit. (Emphasis supplied) ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that as shown in the genealogical table given above, while Nasarwanji Dubash died in 1972, his wife Tahmina several years thereafter in 1983, It is thus obvious that unless something happened to affect the bequest of the above said property situated in Napier Town, Jabalpur made by Nasarwanji to his wife Tahmina vide his will dated 6-12- 1961, the same would have become operative on the death of Nasarwanji in 1972 and Tahmina would have become owner of the said property under the said will in 1972. ( 7 ) BUT, then, something did happen to affect the above said bequest made by Nasarwanji Dubash under his will dated 6-12- 1961 to his wife. It appears that after execution of the said will Nasarwanji Dubash changed his mind in small respect. Instead of making Tahmina owner, of the above-mentioned property after his life time he wanted to make her owner of the same during his life-time itself. It appears that after execution of the said will Nasarwanji Dubash changed his mind in small respect. Instead of making Tahmina owner, of the above-mentioned property after his life time he wanted to make her owner of the same during his life-time itself. Accordingly, he executed a gift-deed in her favour on 28-7-1964 and made her the absolute and exclusive owner of the said property with effect from that date. Needless to say, the effect of the said gift-deed was that as the property in question stood transferred to Smt. Tahmina and she became owner of the same during the life-time of Nasarwanji, the provisions in the will dated 6-12-1961 of Nasarwanji that the said property would go to Smt. Tahmina after his death become redundant. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, in the present case, we are not concerned with the effect of will dated 6-12-1961 executed by Nasarwanji. We are concerned with the effect of the will which Tahmina executed on the same day after the execution of will by her husband. As mentioned earlier, in her will dated 6-12-1961 Tahmina took note of her husband having bequasthed the property in question to her in his will executed by him on the same day and then made a stipulation in favour of her daughter Marry in the following words If I shall inherit the same from my husband Nasarwanji I bequeath the same to my daughter Marry wife of Dossabhoy Maneksha Bharucha for her absolute use and benefit. (Emphasis supplied) ( 9 ) THE question is whether merely because Tahmina afterwards happened to acquire the house in question during the life- lime of her husband in 1964 under the gift deed dated 28-7-1964 executed by him, instead of acquiring the same on his death in 1972 under the will dated 6-12-1961 that had been executed by him earlier, her own bequest of the said house in her will dated 6-12-1961 in favour of her daughter Marry was rendered nugatory or inoperative for that reason. ( 10 ) IN the opinion of this Court, the answer to the face of the will dated 6-12-1961 executed by Tahmina, is quite simple and does not present any difficulty. ( 10 ) IN the opinion of this Court, the answer to the face of the will dated 6-12-1961 executed by Tahmina, is quite simple and does not present any difficulty. It is apparent from a perusal of the will that by what exact made the house in question would come to her from her husband was merely an incidental matter for Tahmina at the time of the execution of the said will. What was really intended by her at the said time was that in case she happened to acquire the house in question from her husband and owned the same at the time of her death the same would go to her daughter Marry for her absolute use and benefit. Thus, it is clear that the mere fact that Tahmina acquired the house in question from her husband under the gift deed dated 28-7-1964 and not under the will that had been executed by him earlier did not make her own bequest of the said house under her will dated 6-12-1961 to her daughter Marry nugatory or inoperative for that reason. ( 11 ) IT is true that the legatee i. e. Marry did not survive her mother. She died on 21-6-1982, Smt. Tahmina died after a year or so on 12-5-1963. But, then, the said fact did not prevent the bequest in question from taking effect. There are exceptions to the general rule contained in section 105 of the Succession Act that if the legatee does not survive the testator, the legacy cannot take effect, but shall lapse and form part of the residue of the testators property, unless it appears by the will that the testator intended that it should go to some other person. One such exception is contained in section 109 according to which were a bequest has been made to any child or other lineal descendant of the testator, and the legatee dies in the life-time of the testator, but any lineal descendant. of his survives the testator, the bequest shall not lapse, but shall take effect as if the death of the legatee had happened immediately after the death of the testator, unless a contrary intention appears by the will. ( 12 ) THE illustration appended to section 109 makes the meaning of the exception to the general rule very clear. of his survives the testator, the bequest shall not lapse, but shall take effect as if the death of the legatee had happened immediately after the death of the testator, unless a contrary intention appears by the will. ( 12 ) THE illustration appended to section 109 makes the meaning of the exception to the general rule very clear. The illustration is as follows, A makes his will, by which he bequeaths a sum of money to his son B, for his own absolute use and benefit. B dies before A, leaving a son, C, who survives A, and having made his will whereby he bequeaths all his property to his widow, D. The money goes to D. In the case in hand, the testator i. e. Smt. Tahmina had made the bequest in question to her daughter or lineal descendant Marry D. Bharucha. As is clear from the genealogical table given above, though the legatee i. e. Mrs. Marry D. Bharucha died in lifetime of the testator, a lineal descendant of hers i. e. , her daughter Miss Bharucha survived the testator. In the circumstances, as no intention to the contrary appeared in the will there is no reason to think that the bequest of the property in question made by Tahmina in favour of her daughter Mary D. Bharucha lapsed or became ineffective on account of the said daughter having pre-deceased Tahmina. It is clear then by virtue of section 109 the said bequest did take effect on the death of Tahmina on 12-5-1983 and enured for the benefit of her daughters daughter Miss Rati Bharucha. ( 13 ) IN view of the above said factual and legal position, emerging from the material contained in the complaint and in the documents filed therewith, there is no escape from the conclusion that the allegations made by the complainants regarding the two accused having committed an offence under section 418 of the Indian Penal Code were frivolous and there existed no sufficient ground for the Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the said offence and direct the issue of process against them. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to the complainants, the two accused were the trustees and executors of the will dated 6-12-1961 left behind by Nasarwanji Dubash and his wife Tahmina. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to the complainants, the two accused were the trustees and executors of the will dated 6-12-1961 left behind by Nasarwanji Dubash and his wife Tahmina. According to them, since Tahmina acquired the property in question from her husband under the gift deed dated 28-7-1964, and not under the will dated 6-12-1961 that had been executed by him earlier, her own bequest of the said house under her will dated 6-12-1961 in favour of her daughter Mary Bharucha become nugatory and inoperative according to them, the result was that after the death of Tahmina on 12-5-1983 her legal heirs including the complainants that become entitled to claim the said house by intestate succession. It was alleged by the complainants that the two accused deliberately suppressed from them the fact of Nasarwanji having executed gift deed dated 28-7-1961 in favour of Tahmina and made them believe that under the will dated 6-12-1961 left behind by Tahmina the property in question rightly became the property of her daughters daughter Miss. Rati Bharucha. According to them, the said conduct of the two accused amounted to cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss might ensue to the complainants whose interest they were bound to protect as the trustees and executers of the wills. ( 15 ) SUFFICE it to say, in view of the factual and legal position already explained above, the abovesaid complaint made by the complainants against the two accused had absolutely no legs to stand and the same did not disclose any offence under section 418 of the Indian Penal Code, against them whatsoever. In the first instance, as explained earlier, the validity of the bequest of the property in question made by Tahmina in her will dated 6-12-1961 in favour of her daughter Mary was in no way affected by the fact that Tahmina came to acquire the said property from her husband Nasarwanji under the gift deed dated 28-7-1964 executed by him and not under the will dated 6-12-1961 which had been executed by him earlier. Secondly, like the two accused, the complainants too were closely related to Nasarwanji and his wife Tahmina. The gift deed dated 27-8-1964 executed by Nasarwanji in favour of Tahmina was a registered document. In the circumstances, the complainants were as much expected to have knowledge of the said gift deed as the two accused had. Secondly, like the two accused, the complainants too were closely related to Nasarwanji and his wife Tahmina. The gift deed dated 27-8-1964 executed by Nasarwanji in favour of Tahmina was a registered document. In the circumstances, the complainants were as much expected to have knowledge of the said gift deed as the two accused had. There was no obligation cast on the two accused to inform the complainants about the said gift deed in case they did not really know about it. It was apparent that the sole purpose of the complainants in filing the complaint in question against the two accused was to pressurise them with a view to obtain some unfair advantage from them. ( 16 ) IN the opinion of this Court, therefore, it is a fit case for exercise its inherit powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashing the proceedings and dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 8-10-1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 5018 of 1985 taking cognizance of an offence under section 418 of the Indian Penal Code against the two accused-applicants is set aside and the complaint made by the complainant against them is dismissed. Appeal dismissed .