JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Applicants are aggrieved by impugned order dated 02.12.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Complaint Case No. 22712 of 2022 (Dev Kumar vs. Santosh Kumar Sharma and others), under Sections 304, 420 IPC, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad, whereby they have been summoned to face trial. 2. Complainant has initially lodged a FIR for offence under Sections 467, 468, 420, 302 IPC that applicants who are his brother and Bhabhi have committed offence of cheating and forgery whereby they have forcefully took signatures and thumb impressions of his father and executed a Will on 27.01.2017 in their favour in exclusion of Complainant and under unnatural circumstances on very next day, his father died on 28.01.2017. 3. After investigation in aforesaid FIR, a final report was submitted. At that stage further investigation was directed by Police Officials, however, again a final report was submitted that there was no reason to take a contrary view to earlier final report. 4. A protest petition thereafter was filed by Complainant, which was treated as a complaint and thereafter statements of Complainant and other witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and applicants were summoned by means of impugned order dated 02.12.2023 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 5. Mrs. Anita Singh, learned counsel for applicants submitted that Complainant has also filed a civil suit for cancellation of Will. Complainant was mainly aggrieved that Will was prepared only in favour of applicants and he was not included and in order to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute, criminal proceedings were initiated. Learned counsel further submits that only on basis that their father died after a day of execution of Will, it could not be a case for offence under Section 304 IPC without any evidence. It is on record that applicants’ father was an 80 year old person and was suffering from old age ailments. He got admitted in hospital on 27.01.2024 and discharged on 28.01.2024, however, he died on same day. No objection was made when cremation was conducted. He refers some statements recorded during investigation specifically the statement of Doctor. There are no ground to proceed against the applicants and summoning order is liable to be quashed. 6. He got admitted in hospital on 27.01.2024 and discharged on 28.01.2024, however, he died on same day. No objection was made when cremation was conducted. He refers some statements recorded during investigation specifically the statement of Doctor. There are no ground to proceed against the applicants and summoning order is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned AGA for State and Sri Arvind Agarwal, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, has submitted that applicants have taken advantage of old age of his father and forced him to execute a Will in favour of applicants. He was not in best of his mental condition. Complainant’s father died in suspicious circumstances. It was not normal that on the very next date of execution of Will his father got admitted and was forcefully discharged and later on same day he died. Factum of filing a suit for cancellation of Will was not denied. 7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Before adverting to rival submissions it would be relevant to refer few paragraph of a recent judgement passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339:- “9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited1 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus: “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus: “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few —Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [ (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [ (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [ (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [ (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [ (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [ (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [ (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [ (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. It is well settled that process of summoning is a serious matter. It became more serious when order of summoning is for offence under Section 304 IPC, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is on record that on investigation of FIR, a final report was prepared and despite further investigation again a final report was submitted that no case is made out. It is also on record that a suit for cancellation of Will is filed at the behest of Complainant against present applicants. 10. It is on record that on investigation of FIR, a final report was prepared and despite further investigation again a final report was submitted that no case is made out. It is also on record that a suit for cancellation of Will is filed at the behest of Complainant against present applicants. 10. In above background, the Court proceed to consider statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as impugned order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and relevant part thereof are mentioned hereinafter: Statement of Complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Relevant part of impugned order: 11. Complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has narrated the version made in protest petition which appears to be corroborated to some extent by statements of witnesses. However, Court has to examine, whether on basis of above referred statements there are sufficient ground to proceed against applicants as well as whether Complainant has given cloak of criminality to a case which is essentially of civil nature. 12. In this regard the reason assigned by Trial Court in impugned order could become relevant that on basis of material available there was a suspicion that father of Complainant died under unnatural circumstances and essentially on basis of such reason it was considered to be a case of ‘cheating’, i.e., under Section 420 IPC as well as Section 304 IPC. 13. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention few paragraphs of judgments passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 and Sachin Gang vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024 INSC 72 , as under: Lalankumar Singh (supra) "38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 which reads thus: "51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect." Sachin Garg (supra) “18. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect." Sachin Garg (supra) “18. While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, as has been held in the case of Jagdish Ram (supra). The same proposition of law has been laid down in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. -vs Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [ (1998) 5 SCC 749 ]. The learned Magistrate's order issuing summons records the background of the case in rather longish detail but reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic manner....” (Emphasis supplied) 14. In above background and taking note that Complainant has already filed a civil suit for cancellation of Will, at this stage there is no material before Trial Court as well as no reason has been assigned that there are sufficient ground to proceed against applicants to summon under Section 420 IPC. The ingredients of Section 420 IPC that applicants have cheated and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property, are not made out as at this stage it could not be concluded that deceased has signed Will under force. In this regard I have also perused photocopy of Will wherein not only thumb impression of deceased was marked but he has also put his signatures. 15. With regard to summon under Section 304 IPC, Trial Court has noted that Will was executed on 27.01.2017 and executor was admitted in Hospital on same day and he expired on next date. Trial Court considered the said circumstances suspicious and sufficient to summon applicants. In this regard Trial Court has taken note of statement of Complainant and his mother. With regard to summon under Section 304 IPC, Trial Court has noted that Will was executed on 27.01.2017 and executor was admitted in Hospital on same day and he expired on next date. Trial Court considered the said circumstances suspicious and sufficient to summon applicants. In this regard Trial Court has taken note of statement of Complainant and his mother. However, without any post mortem report or without any statement of Doctor before Trial Court only on basis that executor of Will, a person aged about 80 years, died on very next day as well as without any medical report that he was a person of unsound mind, I do not find that there are sufficient ground to proceed against applicants to summon them under Section 304 IPC also. Accordingly, ingredients of Section 304 IPC are also not made out. Court has taken note of Lalankumar Singh (supra) and Sachin Garg (supra). 16. In in view of above and taking note of A.M. Mohan (supra), application is allowed. Impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 22712 of 2022 (Dev Kumar vs. Santosh Kumar Sharma and others), under Section 304, 420 IPC, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad, are hereby quashed. 17. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.