Video article: End of mandatory Probate

 

Print Page

Advisory: The 2025 Transition from Mandatory to Permissive Probate

 

1. Executive Context: The Decoupling of Probate and Property Rights

The enactment of the Repealing and Amending Act 2025 marks the long-overdue dismantling of a colonial bottleneck that has constrained Indian succession for over a century. For decades, beneficiaries were caught in a paradoxical legal trap: they possessed the "key to the safe" (a valid Will) but were forbidden by law from opening it without completing an arduous and expensive "government course" known as probate. This mandatory gatekeeper model prioritized procedural compliance over inherent inheritance rights, creating an unnecessary barrier between heirs and their legacies.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How should the court appreciate evidence if there is a prosecution allegation regarding robbery by an unknown person?

 In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made Accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the Accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the Accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the Accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the Accused was identified. Apart from above, discovery/ recovery of any looted Article on the disclosure made by, or at the instance of, the Accused, or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to the prosecution case.

{Para 14}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 201 of 2020 and 202 of 2020 

Decided On: 04.02.2025

Wahid Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,  and Manoj Misra, , JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 145, MANU/SC/0145/2025.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Invoking perjury jurisdiction at the interlocutory stage, with trial already underway and issues framed, would risk interfering with and prejudicing the main civil proceedings

 In my opinion, an application under section 340 of the cr.pc ought to be normally considered at the time of final decision of the case only and not at the interim stage as the defendants/applicant have pressed in the present case. It is the settled legal position that the said provision cannot be resorted to, to satisfy a private grudge of the litigant. In fact the very genesis of this provision is to prevent complaints being filed of offences having being committed in relation to the court proceedings; it was felt that if such complaints are permitted to be filed, the same may be used to force the other party into giving up its claim/defence or to dissuade witnesses from appearing before the courts under threat of criminal prosecution. It was held as far back as in Rewashankar Moolchand v. Emperor MANU/NA/0017/1939 : AIR 1940 Nagpur 72 that proceedings under Section 340Cr.PC should not be resorted to when the criminal case is calculated to hamper fair trial of issue in the civil court before which the matter would probably go on for longer. This court also in Jindal Polyster Ltd. v. Rahul Jaura MANU/DE/2772/2005 : 124 (2005) DLT 613 and in Kuldeep Kapoor v. Susanta Sengupta MANU/DE/2870/2005 : 126 (2006) DLT 149 has held that applications under section 340 of the Cr.pc should be dealt with at the final stage only and not at the interim stage. I also find a consistency of view in this regard in the other High Courts. The law is that a prosecution for perjury should not be ordered by the court before the close of the proceedings in the case in which false evidence is given. It is highly wrong for a court to take action under the said provision against a witness or a party for giving false evidence when trial is underway. {Para 18}

21. Formation of prima facie opinion that a person charged has intentionally given false evidence is a condition precedent for directing lodging of a complaint. The existence of mens rea or criminal intention behind act complained of will have to be looked into and considered before any action under section 340 of the cr.pc is recommended. Before setting the criminal law into motion, the court should exercise great care and caution and it must be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge in respect of which prosecution is directed. No prosecution ought to be ordered unless reasonable probability of conviction is found. Considering the nature of the documents and evidence in relation whereto offences are alleged to have been committed.

"6. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1)CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. 

17. The law governing the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS, for offences under Sections 227, 229, 236, 237, and 246 of the BNS, provides that for a statement to constitute 'false evidence' under Section 227 BNS, the falsity must be clear, deliberate, and established through unimpeachable evidence. Mere inconsistencies in versions or bare denials do not meet this threshold. The Written Statement reflects Defendant No. 2's explanation that he had purchased the alleged pirated version of ISP under a bona fide belief of its genuineness, a contention the veracity of which can only be determined upon leading of evidence.

23. Before filing of the complaint under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS, the Court along with a clear and deliberate falsehood supported by an unimpeachable evidence has to record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (COMM) 914/2023

Decided On: 24.11.2025

Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Ors. Vs. Karma Mindtech and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tejas Karia, J.

Citation: 2025 DHC 10345, MANU/DE/9185/2025.

Print Page