Recently, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in a property dispute involving allegations of a forged Will, emphasising that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained against a purchaser in the absence of any material showing involvement in fraud or conspiracy.
The case arose from a complaint alleging that a Will was forged when he was in a comatose condition. It was alleged that the accused persons conspired to fabricate the Will and subsequently executed sale deeds in 1998 to transfer the property.
An FIR was registered for offences relating to forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy, and after investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The appellant, who was one of the purchasers of the property, sought quashing of the proceedings before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, but the High Court refused to interfere, holding that disputed questions of fact were involved.
On behalf of the Appellant, it was argued that he was merely a bona fide purchaser who had purchased the property after verifying title and possession, and there was no material to show his involvement in the alleged forgery or conspiracy. It was further contended that he was young at the relevant time and studying abroad, and that the prosecution case was based on weak evidence, particularly a handwriting expert’s opinion derived from a xerox copy.
On the other hand, the State and the complainant contended that the chargesheet disclosed sufficient material to proceed to trial and that the appellant, being a beneficiary of the transaction, could not escape prosecution at the threshold. They argued that the evidentiary value of the material, including the expert opinion, could only be tested during trial.
The Court, after examining the record, found that there was no material to connect the Appellant with the alleged fabrication of the Will or with any conspiracy. It observed that the appellant was only a purchaser for valuable consideration and there was no evidence of fraudulent inducement or knowledge of forgery. The Court also expressed serious doubt regarding the evidentiary value of the handwriting expert’s opinion since it was based on a xerox copy of the document.
Importantly, the Court reiterated the settled legal position and quoted that “When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him… But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.” The Court further held that even if the Will were found to be forged, the purchasers would be the aggrieved parties rather than the accused, and continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed all criminal proceedings against the appellant. However, it clarified that the trial would continue against the remaining accused persons.
Picture Source :
