SC on Criminal Investigation in Probate Disputes

By Team @ Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.
Reviewed by: Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. Legal Team
Last Updated: 11 June 2026

Quick Answer

In Bai Avabai Hormusji Tata Trust v. Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer & Others, decided on 25 May 2026, the Supreme Court upheld orders of the Bombay High Court directing a court-monitored criminal investigation in the course of pending testamentary proceedings. The Court held that although a probate court primarily examines the validity of a Will, the High Court does not lose its constitutional and plenary powers while exercising testamentary jurisdiction. Where serious allegations suggest that estate assets may have been siphoned away, the Court can take steps to protect the estate and assist its appointed administrator.

Why This Judgment Matters

Probate disputes are often viewed as civil proceedings focused on determining whether a Will is genuine and validly executed. However, estate disputes sometimes involve allegations of fraud, concealment of assets, diversion of funds or misuse of authority by persons claiming rights under a Will.

This judgment is significant because it clarifies that a High Court exercising testamentary jurisdiction is not confined to a narrow examination of the Will alone. If circumstances indicate that estate assets under judicial protection are being dissipated or concealed, the Court may use its broader powers to ensure effective administration of justice.

The decision is particularly relevant for executors, trustees, beneficiaries, estate administrators and lawyers involved in succession disputes. It also highlights the responsibilities of court-appointed administrators tasked with protecting estate property pending adjudication of competing claims.

Brief Facts

The dispute concerned the estate of a deceased Parsi testator whose assets were reportedly worth more than ₹100 crores. Two competing Wills surfaced after his death. One Will was propounded by certain beneficiaries, while another Will named a different executor and directed that the estate be used for charitable purposes. Probate proceedings relating to both Wills were converted into testamentary suits before the Bombay High Court.

During the proceedings, the High Court appointed an Administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Administrator later reported that substantial sums had been transferred from estate accounts shortly after the testator’s death. Investigations also allegedly revealed links between multiple entities and individuals connected with the disputed transactions. The Administrator reported non-cooperation, incomplete disclosures and concerns regarding diversion of estate funds.

Faced with these allegations, the Single Judge directed the filing of a criminal complaint and ordered a court-monitored investigation. The Division Bench upheld those directions, leading to appeals before the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issue

The Supreme Court considered three principal questions:

1. Can a probate court direct a criminal investigation while testamentary proceedings are pending?

2. Does the Indian Succession Act prevent the High Court from exercising broader constitutional powers?

3. Can the Court act to protect estate property where there are allegations of fraud or siphoning of assets?

What the Court Held

High Court Retains Plenary Powers

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that a testamentary court can only examine the validity of a Will. While recognising that probate proceedings primarily concern the genuineness and execution of a Will, the Court held that the High Court remains a constitutional court possessing inherent and plenary powers.

Administrator Is an Officer of the Court

The Court emphasised the role of an Administrator pendente lite appointed under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act. Such an administrator acts under the immediate control of the Court and is responsible for protecting estate assets pending resolution of disputes. The Court described the administrator as effectively the “hand of the Court.”

Estate Was Under Judicial Protection

The Supreme Court noted that the estate was effectively in judicial custody because rival testamentary claims were pending and an administrator had been appointed. In such circumstances, the Court was entitled to ensure that estate assets were not dissipated or misappropriated.

Investigation Was Justified

The Court found that the allegations involved possible diversion of estate funds, non-disclosure of material information and obstruction of the administrator’s efforts. Given these circumstances, it held that the High Court was justified in directing an investigation. The Court also agreed that the investigation would operate independently and that parties would have full opportunities to defend themselves if any criminal proceedings were eventually initiated.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Bombay High Court’s orders.

Practical Takeaways

• Probate courts primarily determine the validity of Wills, but High Courts retain broader constitutional powers.

• Court-appointed administrators have a duty to protect estate assets.

• Allegations of fraud or diversion of estate funds may justify further judicial action.

• Estate property under court supervision receives enhanced protection.

• A criminal investigation does not automatically determine guilt; parties retain full legal defences.

• Executors and trustees should maintain complete transparency when dealing with estate assets.

What the Judgment Does Not Decide

• Which of the competing Wills is ultimately genuine.

• Whether any accused person is criminally liable.

• The final distribution of the estate.

• The merits of any future criminal prosecution.

• Whether similar directions would be justified in every probate dispute.

Short Ratio

Where estate property is under judicial supervision and serious allegations suggest diversion or misappropriation of assets, a High Court exercising testamentary jurisdiction may invoke its inherent and constitutional powers to direct a criminal investigation in aid of protecting the estate and assisting its court-appointed administrator.