The Supreme Court of India has allowed an appeal filed by a property purchaser, quashing criminal proceedings against him in a case involving an allegedly forged Will. The Court observed that a purchaser for valuable consideration, who has no role in the alleged fabrication of a document and no privity of contract with the complainant, cannot be prosecuted for cheating or forgery under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, set aside the order of the Madras High Court which had refused to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The apex court held that continuing the prosecution against the appellant would “tantamount to gross abuse of the process of the Court.”
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, alleging that a Will dated September 12, 1988, purportedly executed by his late father, Ayyasamy Nadar, was fabricated. According to the complainant, his father was in a comatose condition for a month prior to his death on September 19, 1988, and could not have executed the document.
It was alleged that the first accused (A-1), the brother of the complainant, conspired with others to create the forged Will and subsequently sold properties comprised in Survey No. 217 to several individuals (A-2 to A-6) via sale deeds dated December 18, 1998. The appellant (A-6) was one of these purchasers.
Following an investigation, the police filed a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC, concluding that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, and 120-B of the IPC. The appellant moved the Madras High Court to quash the proceedings, but his petition was dismissed on August 11, 2022, on the grounds that the matter involved disputed questions of fact.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions: Senior Counsel Shri Arvind Varma, appearing for the appellant, argued that the prosecution case rested on “assumptions and conjectures.” He highlighted that the appellant was only 14-15 years old when the disputed Will was executed in 1988. At the time of the 1998 sale deed, the appellant was a student in Australia.
The defense contended that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser for consideration who had verified the title and possession of A-1. Furthermore, it was argued that the chargesheet was based on a handwriting expert’s opinion derived from a Xerox copy of the Will, which is an “inherently weak piece of evidence.”
Respondents’ Submissions: The State of Tamil Nadu and the complainant opposed the quashing, asserting that the material collected disclosed the ingredients of forgery and criminal conspiracy. They argued that the Will was “deliberately and knowingly used as the foundation for alienating valuable property.” Counsel emphasized that the expert opinion indicated the signatures did not tally and that these were matters to be decided during the trial.
Analysis of the Court
The Supreme Court noted that the sale deeds clearly demonstrated the purchase was made for “valuable consideration.” It found “not even an iota of evidence” to suggest the appellant played any role in the fabrication of the 1988 Will.
The Court scrutinized the FSL report, noting that the comparison was made using a Xerox copy, which raised a “serious issue regarding the evidentiary value” of the report. On the charge of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the Court stated:
“The appellant, being a purchaser of the subject property for valuable consideration, cannot… be considered to be the person who offered fraudulent inducement to respondent No.2-complainant or made him to deliver some property or part with valuable security so as to bring his acts within the purview of fraudulent inducement and cheating to gain property punishable under Section 420 IPC.”
The Court further observed that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the complainant. Crucially, the Bench held that even if the Will were forged, the purchasers would be the aggrieved parties as their title would be in jeopardy.
Relying on the precedent in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another (2009), the Court quoted:
“If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant could not be held liable for criminal conspiracy or cheating simply for being a purchaser of the land.
“We are of the firm opinion that allowing further prosecution of the appellant… would be wholly unjustified and would tantamount to gross abuse of the process of the Court,” the Bench remarked. While quashing the proceedings specifically against the appellant, the Court clarified that the trial would continue against the remaining accused persons.
Case Details:
- Case Title: S. Anand v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 12177 of 2022)
- Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Date: April 21, 2026
