Normally, quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and done in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
But, that does not mean that it could not be done in invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, says the Supreme Court ( SC) in Kim Wansoo v State of Uttar Pradesh & Others [2025 INSC 8].
That means, criminal proceedings can be quashed by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Probate Not Necessary For Wills Executed By Indian Christians And Muhammadans After State Amendment To Indian Succession Act: Kerala High Court
08-01-2025
The Kerala High Court on Monday (January 6) reaffirmed a significant legal point regarding the rights of an executor over a deceased’s estate, especially when dealing with the Wills of Muhammadans or Indian Christians. In a case involving the late Fr. George Valiaveetil, an Indian Christian, the Court reiterated that an executor does not need to obtain a probate to establish their rights over a Will under certain circumstances, thanks to a state amendment made to Section 213(2) of the Indian Succession Act.
Kerala Amendment to Indian Succession Act
Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act traditionally required the executor of a Will to obtain probate from the competent Court to establish their legal right to administer the deceased’s estate. Probate, in essence, is a legal process confirming the validity of a Will. However, a significant amendment to the Indian Succession Act, specifically the Kerala amendment, came into force in 1997. This amendment inserted a provision stating that “this section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by Muhammadans or Indian Christians.” This amendment essentially allowed the executors of such Wills to claim rights over the estate without the need for probate.
The Case of Fr. George Valiaveetil
In the present case, the deceased, Fr. George Valiaveetil, had left behind a Will, and his estate included deposits with a respondent bank. Upon Fr. Valiaveetil’s death, the petitioner, nominated as the executor of the Will, approached the bank for the deceased’s account details. However, the bank insisted that the executor present a copy of the probated Will before releasing the information. The executor filed a writ petition challenging the bank’s requirement, invoking the Kerala amendment to Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice C.S. Dias, who presided over the case, pointed out that the Kerala Amendment to Section 213 of the Succession Act (1996) was already in force at the time of Fr. Valiaveetil’s death. As a result, the bank’s insistence on a probated Will was misplaced. The Court dismissed the bank’s argument that releasing the deposits to the executor would make the bank liable if a later claimant emerged. The Court described the bank’s contention as “naïve and untenable,” given the clear legal provisions under the Kerala amendment.
Precedent Cited by the Court
The Kerala High Court also referenced a previous ruling in Kurian @ Jacob v. Chellamma John and Others (2017), where the Court held that with the amendment, any legal barrier preventing an executor or legatee from claiming rights under a Christian Will without probate had been removed. The Court further emphasized that the executor or legatee of a deceased Christian’s Will could establish their rights without the need for probate, making the probate process redundant in such cases.
Court’s Direction on Indemnity Bond
Despite its ruling, the Court acknowledged the bank’s concern about possible claims from other parties in the future. To address this, the Court directed the executor to execute an indemnity bond in favor of the bank. This bond would ensure that the bank would be indemnified in case any third party raised a claim against the deceased’s estate, thereby safeguarding the bank from future legal liabilities.
Release of Deposits
In addition, the Court directed the bank to release the deceased’s deposits to the executor in accordance with the Will. The Court’s decision was a balanced one, offering a practical solution to the legal dispute while upholding the rights of the executor under the amended Indian Succession Act.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s judgment in this case highlights the legal clarity provided by the Kerala Amendment to Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, which simplifies the process for executors of Muhammadans and Indian Christians to establish their rights over Wills. The decision also emphasizes the importance of balancing legal rights with the protection of parties involved, such as financial institutions like banks, by requiring an indemnity bond to mitigate any future risks.
Appellant VERSUS Respondent:: Smt. Ambily Jose V. Sub Registrar And Another