Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
Mr. Ilavarasan - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
Crl.OP(MD).No. 1376 of 2026 and Crl.MP(MD).Nos.1446 & 1447 of 2026
Decided On : 09-06-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Adithya Varadarajan For Mr.J.Hariharan
For the Respondent: Mr.J.Vishnu Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu, Mr.U.Antony Santhosh
Criminal proceedings against a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration, lacking evidence of knowledge regarding a vendor's fraudulent suppression of facts in official succession documents, constitute an abuse of legal process, as the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery cannot be established against them.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of charge sheet - Cheating and forgery - Bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration - Absence of evidence indicating knowledge of fraudulent suppression in succession documents - No specific overt act alleged - Prosecution of purchasers in such circumstances constitutes an abuse of process. (Paras 14, 15, 18)
(B) Succession Certificate - Suppression of facts by vendors - Whether certificate obtained by suppression constitutes forgery - Document issued by a competent authority - Mere suppression of heirs does not amount to forgery under penal code. (Paras 12, 13)
(C) Cheating - Essential ingredients - Fraudulent inducement and delivery of property - Absence of deception or inducement by purchasers towards the complainant - Mere execution of sale deeds for valuable consideration does not satisfy the requirements of cheating. (Paras 6, 17)
Facts of the case:
A property dispute arose wherein certain family members obtained a succession-related document excluding other legal heirs. This document was used to execute a power of attorney, facilitate land development, and sell plots. The excluded party filed a criminal complaint alleging fraud and forgery against the primary sellers and subsequent third-party purchasers. The matter reached the court via a petition to quash the charge sheet against the subsequent purchasers.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the documents were obtained through the legitimate competent authority despite the suppression of facts, thereby failing the test for forgery. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the third-party purchasers had knowledge of the prior legitimate heirs or the initial suppression. Without such knowledge or direct participation in the fraudulent act, the purchasers could not be held criminally liable.
Issues: The primary issues were whether purchasers acting in good faith for valuable consideration can be held liable for criminal offences when their vendor suppressed facts in succession documents, and whether such suppression constitutes forgery under settled law.
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal liability cannot be extended to bonafide purchasers without proof of guilty knowledge or direct involvement in fraudulent inducement. The court emphasized that when a document is issued by a competent authority, its mere misuse due to the suppression of facts does not render it a 'forged' document, and ingredients of cheating are not met when there is no deception or inducement by the purchaser towards the complainant.
Result: Petition allowed; charge sheet quashed against the purchasers.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual history of ownership and disputed property transfers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding criminal intent and bonafide purchase. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court finds petitioners lacked knowledge of fraudulent certificate suppression. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. bonafide purchasers for value lack fraudulent intent under ipc. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. quashing criminal proceedings for lack of specific overtacts. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER :
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
The present petition has been filed by accused Nos.3 & 4 against C.C.No.83 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatty, Madurai seeking to quash the charge sheet wherein they are charged with the offences under Sections 147, 120(b), 406, 420, 468, 471 and 506(i) I.P.C.
2.A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that an extent of 1.55 ½ acres in S.Nos.115 and 115/2A in Pothumbu Village was owned by one Nataraj Nadar. He passed away on 16.11.2001 leaving behind his two sons (accused Nos. 1 and 2) and 5 daughters including the defacto complainant and his widow. The Tahsildhar, Madurai South Taluk had issued a legal heir certificate on 10.04.2002 reflecting all the 8 legal heirs.
3.It is alleged in the charge sheet that accused Nos.1 and 2 ( sons of the deceased Nataraj Nadar) had obtained another legal heir certificate from the same authority on 15.06.2007 as if they are the only legal heirs of the deceased Nataraj Nadar. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that accused Nos.1 and 2 had executed a registered power deed for the above said property in favour of the 4th accused by way of a document registered in Document No.437/2008 on 20.02.2008. Thereafter, based upon the said power deed, accused Nos.3 and 4 had applied for land use conversion for formation of layout and they obtained layout approval. It is further alleged that the 4th accused had executed a sale deed in favour of the 3rd accused under a registered document on 22.09.2011 based upon the power deed.
4.On 11.03.2014 one of the sisters of accused Nos.1 and 2 ( defacto complainant) had lodged a complaint to the first respondent police alleging fraudulent sale of the family property using forged legal heir certificate and an F.I.R came to be registered in Crime No.129 of 2014. After investigation, a charge sheet has been laid before the Judicial Magistrate Vadipatti in C.C.No. 83 of 2022. Seeking to quash the above said charge sheet, the present petition has been filed.
5.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners are not aware of the legal heir certificate issued by the authorities in the year 2002. They were carried away by the legal heir certificate of the year 2007 and they relied upon the power deed and created a layout. The plots in the layout has been sold to several third parties and finally a sale deed came to be executed by a power agent (A4) in favour of A3.
6.According to the petitioners, they are the bonafide purchasers have acted in good faith for valuable consideration and there is no reason whatsoever for doubting the genuinity of the legal heir certificate. The learned counsel had further contended that the legal heir certificate dated 15.06.2007 is not a forged document and it has been issued by a competent authority. The only allegation is that accused Nos.1 and 2 have suppressed the existence of availability of other legal heirs under the previous legal heir certificate and had obtained a second legal heir certificate. In such circumstances, the alleged offence under Section 465 of I.P.C is not made out. In fact, the power deed was executed in favour of 4th accused only after legal heir certificate was issued in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, there is no role whatsoever on the part of the 4th accused in obtaining a legal heir certificate in the year 2007. He further contended that a bonafide purchaser cannot be held criminally liable for the criminal action of his vendor. He further
