Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against a witness for actions not witnessed or participated in, especially in civil disputes.

Order :

1. By way of filing the instant miscellaneous petition, challenge is made to the very lodging of the FIR No.479/2022 at the Police Station, Udaimandir, District Jodhpur City East for the offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as mentioned in the FIR are that the complainant decided to sell a piece of land to one Rampratap for Rs.4,21,000 per bigha. An initial transaction took place, in which Rs.35,00,000 was transferred on 06.06.2012. The remaining payments of Rs.35,00,000 and Rs.50,00,000 were agreed to be transferred on 05.08.2012 and 05.09.2012, respectively. The final payment of Rs.1,00,00,000 was to be made after obtaining the lease for the said land. A receipt detailing these conditions was provided to the complainant and Shri Chotu Singh, with the signatures of witnesses Rampratap and Rajan duly attested. As per the terms mentioned in the receipt dated 06.06.2012, Rampratap was supposed to pay Rs.35,00,000 on 05.08.2012. However, he made this payment on 16.10.2012 instead. At the time of payment, Rampratap himself recorded an entry regarding the transaction, after which the complainant and Shri Chotu Singh signed it and dated it as 16.10.2012, with Rajan serving as a witness. It is further alleged that when this entry was made, some blank space was left between the entry and the complainant's signature. The accused, Rampratap and Rajan, allegedly took advantage of this space and forged additional entries of Rs.30,00,000 on 10.09.2012 and Rs.20,00,000 on 16.10.2012. Additionally, they altered the original entry of Rs.35,00,000 by inserting the date 05.08.2012 before it. This forgery was committed by falsely filling in amounts and dates. In a normal course of transactions, when a person receives money, they sign separately for each payment. However, the accused, Rampratap, allegedly misused the blank space between the entry and the signature dated 16.10.2012 and thus, committed forgery and fraud.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present FIR is a clear misuse of criminal law, as the dispute arises from a land sale agreement, which is purely civil in nature. It is further argued that the petitioner had no involvement in the transaction beyond signing as a witness and was neither part of any monetary exchange nor responsible for alleged forgery. The FIR lacks prima facie evidence against him, and even the complainant admitted in court that the petitioner had merely signed as a witness, further weakening the case. Further, it was submitted that the charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are contradictory, making the FIR legally untenable. Additionally, there is no evidence to support allegations of forgery or conspiracy, as the alleged fraudulent entries were solely attributed to the co-accused. The FIR appears to be driven by malice, intended to harass the petitioner rather than seek genuine legal redress. Moreover, the frivolous proceedings violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. He provided the established Supreme Court precedents, dictate that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes, and in the absence of substantial evidence, such FIRs should be quashed to prevent abuse of the legal process.

4. The public prosecutor and counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel of the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the FIR impugned and other material made available to this Court.

6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and minutely going through the contents of the FIR and the other material made available to this Court, it is revealing that the FIR primarily alleges that only Rampratap was involved in the sale of land. A transaction of Rs. 35 lakhs took place on 06.06.2012, for which a receipt was duly prepared. Howeve