A bona fide purchaser relying on verified records cannot be held criminally liable for forgery originated by a previous seller without evidence of complicity.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 2806 of 2009 arising out of Airfield P.S. Case No. 153 of 2009, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar (now J.M.F.C.-I, Bhubaneswar), registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 , 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Mr. Subir Palit, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties.

3. The facts of this case, in brief, are that on 14.10.2009 one Ashok Kumar Das, resident of Bhimtangi, Bhubaneswar, lodged a written First Information Report before the Inspector-in-Charge, Airfield Police Station, alleging commission of offences relating to cheating, forgery and use of forged documents in respect of a motor vehicle transaction. Based on the said written report, Airfield P.S. Case No.153 of 2009 came to be registered and investigation was taken up by the police.

4. As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is stated that one Debi Prasanna Padhi had sold a red-coloured Toyota Innova vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-02-AT-2200 to Smt. Suchismita Das, who is the wife of the informant, for a consideration amount of Rs.8,20,000/-. It is further alleged that at the time of sale, the said Debi Prasanna Padhi handed over all vehicle documents and facilitated the transfer of ownership and registration in the name of Smt. Suchismita Das through the Regional Transport Office, Bhubaneswar.

5. The informant subsequently came to know that the said vehicle was under an outstanding loan liability amounting to Rs.8,33,980/- with ICICI Bank, Bhubaneswar Branch and that the No Objection Certificate allegedly submitted before the RTO for removal of hypothecation and transfer of ownership was a forged document. On coming to know about the alleged forgery, the informant is stated to have contacted Debi Prasanna Padhi and on 12.03.2009 handed over all documents relating to the vehicle to him in presence of his father, namely Pitambar Padhi, on assurance that the issue would be resolved.

6. It is further alleged that when no response was received from Debi Prasanna Padhi even after the expiry of ten days, the informant contacted the father of Debi Prasanna Padhi, who expressed ignorance about his whereabouts. Thereafter, the informant approached the RTO, Bhubaneswar, to report the alleged forgery, where he allegedly came to know that the vehicle had already been refinanced through TATA Finance and subsequently purchased by the present Petitioner, namely Susant Pujari, and the registration had already been transferred in his name. It is also alleged in the FIR that when the informant approached the present Petitioner and informed him about the alleged forgery, the Petitioner refused to entertain the grievance and asked him to take whatever action he deemed fit.

7. It is the case of the present Petitioner that he is in no manner connected with the alleged acts of forgery or cheating and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case without any prima facie material. The Petitioner asserts that he had purchased the vehicle in question from Smt. Suchismita Das, wife of the informant, through a refinance arrangement facilitated by TATA