B.A. Zaidi, J.@mdashOne Nihal Ahmad of Mohalla Raiwala in district Saharanpur is said to have made a will dated 23.3.1976 copy of which is on record by which he gave half of his immovable property to his three sons and half to one of his sister''s son one Abdul Wahab.
2. The opposite-party No. 2 Mohd. Yusuf son of the testator Nihal Ahmad lodged a first information report against the aforesaid abdul Wahab in favour of whom the will had been executed and the two attesting witnesses of the will, which was registered on the orders of the Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
3. The aforesaid Mohd. Yusuf, who had lodged the F.I.R., is dead but has still been made opposite-party No. 2 in this application. It is not known whether this is deliberate or inadvertant.
4. Subsequent to the registration of the F.I.R. after investigation a charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the aforesaid Abdul Wahab and the other attesting witnesses of the will.
5. One of the two attesting witnesses has filed this application for quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that the matter is of a civil nature and should not proceed in the Criminal Courts and there has been a compromise between the three accused in the case and the brother of the complainant, one of the sons of deceased Nihal.
6. The argument from the side of the counsel for the applicant has been that the remedy of the complainant lay in filing a suit of cancellation of will in the Civil Court and the matter should not have been dragged into the Criminal arena. The F.I.R. mentions that the three accused in the case constitute a notorious Land Mafia and they have been engaging themselves in appropriating lands of other persons by forging documents and by foul means and they even threatened the complainant deceased Usuf. It may be noted that the will is an unregistered document on plain paper.
7. A suit for cancellation of the will in Civil Courts may provide a remedy but the Courts cannot ignore the fact that Land Mafias have developed in various areas and they try to grab other people''s properties by diverse devices, forging documents and threatening the real owners with a view to intimidate them into submission. A perusal of the F.I.R. clearly reveals such a picture. Courts cannot be oblivious of happenings around them and must modulate their approach in accordance with the exigencies and circumstances and the existing social phenomenon. Justice is not to be delivered in vacuum but in accordance with the requirements of the prevailing social practices which the Court should not ignore. The law is not a celestial bird humming in a luminous void, but a facet of life, located in time and space.
8. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of
9. It must, therefore, be examined with care and caution whether the accused in the case constitutes a Land Mafia and are land grabbers and a criminal court has to do it. The plea that the ease is of a civil nature should not, therefore, prevail.
10. As regards the question of compromise it would be sufficient say that most of the offences with which the accused have been charge-sheeted are non-compoundable.
11. Petition dismissed.
