In a significant ruling that underscores the line between civil and criminal proceedings, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed an FIR filed against Ritika Jain and others over allegations of forging a will and codicil in a bitter family property dispute. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, delivering the judgment on October 14, 2025, held that the criminal case amounted to "an abuse of the process of law" as the same matter was already being contested in multiple civil courts, including the Gurugram District Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Background
The case stemmed from a long-running inheritance battle following the deaths of Ajay Kumar Jain, his wife Renu Jain, and their son Nitin Jain in 2021. The complainant, Nitika Choudhary - daughter of Ajay Kumar Jain - alleged that her sister-in-law, Ritika Jain, had conspired with others to forge a codicil (an additional statement to a will) dated May 4, 2021, while her father was in a COVID ward in Jammu.
According to Nitika, the codicil unlawfully transferred the entire estate in favour of Ritika's husband, the late Nitin Jain, effectively depriving her of her rightful 50% share.
However, the petitioners argued that the matter was purely civil in nature, already pending before the Civil Judge in Gurugram, and that Nitika had filed the FIR "only to harass" them after failing to get favourable orders in civil courts.
Mr. Pranav Kohli, Senior Advocate, representing the petitioners, told the court that "when a civil court is already seized of the issue, invoking criminal law is nothing but vengeance in disguise."
Court's Observations
Justice Koul carefully examined the record and noted that both parties had been contesting multiple civil cases over the same estate since 2021. These included suits for partition, revision petitions, and company law proceedings. Even mediation had been attempted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2022.
The judge remarked that despite all this, the complainant chose to register another FIR in Jammu alleging forgery - which, the court found, was clearly linked to the ongoing civil dispute.
"The question regarding validity of the Will or Codicil has to be decided by a civil court after recording evidence and hearing both sides," the bench observed, adding that the criminal proceedings appeared "mala fide" and "meant to pressurize the petitioners."
The court went on to cite several Supreme Court precedents, including Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana (1992), Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd (2006), and Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), reiterating that criminal law should not be weaponized to settle private civil scores.
"The judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment," Justice Koul noted, quoting the Supreme Court’s caution that High Courts must intervene when criminal proceedings are being misused.
Decision
Concluding that the FIR filed at Bakshi Nagar Police Station (No.179 of 2022) was a clear misuse of the criminal process, the High Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the case in its entirety.
"The instant issue squarely falls within the category of civil dispute, but respondent no.2 has given it a criminal colour," the court said. It further clarified that if, at the conclusion of the civil trial, the document in question is found to be forged, the complainant will remain free to initiate appropriate criminal action at that stage.
Thus, all proceedings arising from the FIR against Ritika Jain and others were formally quashed.
With this, the Jammu Bench reaffirmed the principle that criminal law cannot be used as a shortcut or a tool of intimidation in family inheritance conflicts.
Case Title: Ritika Jain and Another vs Union Territory of J&K and Another
Case Type & Number: CRM(M) No. 197 of 2023
