A purchaser of immovable property for valuable consideration cannot be prosecuted for cheating or criminal conspiracy simply due to an alleged forgery of a document by the vendor, absent specific evidence of the purchaser's active participation or prior knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the document.

O R D E R

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant seeks to assail the common order dated 11^th August, 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, NEETU KHAJURIA 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’ whereby, Crl.OP (MD) No. 10902 of 2019, preferred by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Digitally signed by came to be dismissed. By way of the said petition, the appellant had sought to call for the records of Signature Not Verified Date: 2026.04.27

1 R 9 e : a 0 s 4 o :2 n :

IST

2 For short, “CrPC”.

Criminal Case No.419 of 2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, and to quash the proceedings thereof.

4. Respondent No.2-complainant lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Karur District, alleging inter alia that his father, Ayyasamy Nadar, died on 19^th September, 1988. His elder brother, Balakrishnan, had died about one year prior thereto. It was alleged that Ayyasamy Nadar had executed a partition deed dated 2nd December, 1959, under which the ‘A’ Schedule property was allotted to respondent No.2-complainant and, after his death, the same was to devolve upon his legal heirs. It was further alleged that when steps were initiated for transfer of patta in respect of land situated in Survey No. 233 of L.N.S. Village, Karur, respondent No.2- complainant’s mother raised objections before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur.

5. During the course of inquiry in the aforesaid objection proceedings, respondent No.2-complainant was apprised of a Will purportedly executed by his father on 12th September, 1988. However, according to respondent No.2-complainant, no such Will could have been executed on that date, since his father had been in a comatose condition for about one month prior to his death. It was further alleged that around six years prior to the filing of the complaint, A-2 to A- 6 had approached respondent No.2-complainant and his family with an offer to purchase the property at a very low price, which was outrightly rejected. Thereafter, A-1 Raja @ Rajasekaran, being the brother of respondent No.2-complainant, allegedly joined hands with A-2 to A-6 and the attesting witnesses to create the fabricated Will dated 12th September, 1988, and sold the property comprised in Survey No.217, L.N.S. Village, measuring about 1.31 acres, to A-2 to A-6 by sale deeds dated 18th December, 1998.

6. The said complaint was forwarded to Karur Police Station, where FIR/Crime No.994 of 2004 came to be registered on 12^th July, 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, and investigation was commenced.

7. After conclusion of investigation, the police proceeded to file a report under Section 173(2) CrPC

3 For short, ‘IPC’.

before the Court concerned, concluding that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 420 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. The case was taken on file as C.C. No.419 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur.

8. The Investigating Officer concluded in the final report that A-1 to A-9, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, created the forged Will dated 12^th September, 1988, and used the same as a genuine document for executing the sale deeds in favour of A- 2 to A-6. A-7 was an Advocate practising in Karur, whereas A-8 and A-9 were stated to be the clients of A-7. The conspiracy was allegedly hatched in the office of A-7, where the forged Will was prepared. It was further alleged that, on the directions of A-7, A-8 and A-9 attested the said forged Will.

9. A-3 and A-6 approached the High Court by filing separate petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings pending before the trial Court. They claimed to be bona fide purchasers for consideration. Their case was that before entering into the registered transaction for purchase of the lands