Supreme Court: In an appeal challenging to the Madras High Court’s order dated 11 August 2022, refusing to quash criminal proceedings against appeal, a bona fide purchaser, who had been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of having purchased the property through a registered sale deed, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., set aside the impugned order, holding that a bona fide purchaser for value cannot be held criminally liable for forged Will-linked property in absence of any proof of participation, knowledge, or fraudulent intent and the continuation of prosecution against such purchaser would be wholly unjustified and would amount to “gross abuse of the process of the Court”.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the dispute traces back to a complaint lodged by Respondent 2 regarding the property of his father who died on 19 September 1988. It was alleged that under a partition deed dated 2 December 1959, the “A” scheduled property was allotted to the complainant and was to devolve upon his legal heirs. During proceedings concerning transfer of patta, the complainant became aware of a Will dated 12 September 1988 allegedly executed by his father.
The complainant asserted that such a Will could not have been executed because his father was in a comatose condition for about a month prior to his death. It was further alleged that accused persons, including A-1 (the complainant’s brother) and A-2 to A-6, conspired to fabricate the Will and thereafter sold the property through registered sale deeds dated 18 December 1998.
An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 465, 468, 420 and 120-B, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Upon completion of investigation, a final report under Section 173(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was filed alleging offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. The prosecution case was that the accused persons, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, fabricated the Will and used it as genuine for executing sale deeds.
The appellant (A-6) was one of the purchasers of the property. He claimed that he was a bona fide purchaser for value and had no role in the alleged fabrication of the Will.
The appellant challenged the order 11 August 2022, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of criminal case against the appellant, holding that since the disputed questions of fact were involved, they cannot exercise its inherent jurisdiction. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s Contentions
The appellant contended that the prosecution case against him was based on assumptions and conjectures and not on any legally admissible material. He was neither a party to the agreement to sell nor involved in the alleged fabrication of the Will. At the time of execution of the Will in 1988, he was a minor, and at the time of execution of the sale deed in 1998, he was a young student studying in Australia.
It was argued that there was no material to establish any meeting of minds or criminal conspiracy. The appellant had purchased the property after verifying title and possession and had acted with due diligence. There was no evidence to show that he used any forged document knowing it to be forged.
The appellant also challenged the reliance on the handwriting expert’s opinion, stating that it was based on comparison with a xerox copy rather than the original Will, rendering it unreliable. It was further submitted that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, and continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court.
Respondents’ Contentions
The State and the complainant opposed the appeal, contending that the material on record disclosed offences of forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. It was argued that the Will was knowingly used as a genuine document to alienate valuable property.
The respondents submitted that the appellant, being a purchaser under the sale deed, could not seek quashing by raising disputed questions of fact or by relying on his defence of bona fide purchase. The handwriting expert’s opinion indicated mismatch of signatures, and its evidentiary value was a matter for trial. It was further contended that the proceedings had been pending for several years and delay would prejudice the prosecution.
Issues for Determination
Whether criminal proceedings against the appellant could be sustained in the absence of material showing his involvement in the alleged forgery or conspiracy, and whether continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court?
Analysis
The Court noted that the appellant, along with other purchasers, had acquired the property through registered sale deeds dated 18 December 1998 for valuable consideration. There was not even an iota of evidence to show appellant’s role in the fabrication of the Will. The earlier agreement to sell did not involve the appellant.
The Court examined the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report and observed that the comparison of signatures was based on a xerox copy of the Will, raising serious doubts regarding its evidentiary value.
The Court further held that the appellant, as a purchaser for value, could not be said to have induced the complainant to part with property so as to attract the offence of cheating. There was no privity of contract between the appellant and the complainant, nor any material indicating that the appellant had knowledge of the alleged forgery or had participated in any conspiracy.
Importantly, the Court observed that even if the Will were forged, the purchasers would themselves be the aggrieved parties since their title would be affected. It relied on Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein it was held that a third party who is not the purchaser cannot allege cheating in such circumstances.
Ultimately, the Court held that continuation of prosecution against the appellant would be wholly unjustified and would amount to “gross abuse of the process of the Court”.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 11 August 2022 and quashed all proceedings against the appellant pending before the Judicial Magistrate. However, it directed that the proceedings to continue against the other accused persons.
Also Read: Separate Suit challenging auction sale by Transferee Pendente Lite not maintainable: Supreme Court
[S. Anand v. State of T.N., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 702, decided on 21-4-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Arvind Varma, Sr. Adv., Mr. Devesh Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Mohd Faraz Anees, AOR, Mr. Kartik Vashisht, Adv., Mr. Kaustubh Chandra Seth, Adv., Ms. Theepa Murugesan, Adv., Ms. Sanya Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Mukeshwar Nath Dubey, Adv., Ms. Epsita Agastya, Adv., Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv., Ms. Mahima Anand, Adv., Mr. Divesh, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv., Mr. Anand, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Dwivedi, Adv., Mr. Yash Singh, Adv., Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G, Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR, Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv., Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv., Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv., Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv., Mr. A Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv., Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR, Mr. S C V Vimal Pani, Adv., Mr. U Kathiravan, Adv., Ms. Shruti Bisht, AOR, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
