Lack Of Mens Rea: Patna High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Deed Writer Rajesh Ranjan

The Patna High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a deed writer who was accused of colluding with others in executing a fraudulent sale deed. Justice Soni Shrivastava, presiding over a single-judge bench, held that without tangible evidence of fraudulent intent, a deed writer performing his professional duties cannot be held criminally liable.

A Land Dispute Turned Criminal

The case originated from a written report filed by Krishna Kant Ojha, alleging that co-accused Brajbhushan Ojha sold a plot of land without valid ownership, and that the petitioner Rajesh Ranjan, as the Katib (deed writer), along with witnesses and identifiers, colluded in preparing the registered sale deed through fraudulent means. The informant claimed that Brajbhushan admitted his mistake before a panchayat but later assaulted the informant when asked to rectify the registry. Rajesh Ranjan’s name appeared only because he had drafted the sale deed.

Plea of Professional Duty

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Manendra Kumar Sinha, argued that the FIR primarily targeted the co-accused seller, and his inclusion was solely because he wrote the deed as part of his professional obligation. He submitted that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, arising from ancestral property, and had been given a criminal colour. There was no entrustment of property to him, and the allegations of criminal breach of trust, wrongful restraint (Section 341), assault (Section 323), mischief (Section 429), criminal intimidation (Section 506), and intentional insult (Section 504) were not made out against him.

The informant, through Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh, opposed the plea, contending that allegations of collusion and conspiracy existed against the petitioner and that the order taking cognizance was valid.

No Evidence of Fraudulent Intent

The court examined whether the deed writer could be attributed with the requisite mens rea . It noted that the co-accused had already accepted his mistake, and there was no material to show that the petitioner acted with fraudulent intention. Relying on the landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the court observed that the allegations against the petitioner were “bald and causal” and not substantiated by tangible evidence.

Key Observations

The court quoted:

“This Court finds that the petitioner, being a sale deed writer (Katib), was merely doing his professional duty and the mens rea and intention required for indulging into any fraudulent activity, as such, does not surface as against the petitioner. The allegation of collusion is not substantiated by any tangible material and remains a bald and causal allegation.”

The bench also highlighted that the co-accused had himself admitted committing a mistake, and it would be wrong to attribute an intention to commit criminal breach of trust to the petitioner, who proceeded on a bona fide belief that the land was jointly owned by the informant and the co-accused as ancestral property.

Final Decision

Allowing the petition, Justice Shrivastava quashed the order dated June 27, 2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, West Champaran at Bettiah, in connection with Manpur P.S. Case No.38 of 2020, insofar as it pertained to Rajesh Ranjan. The proceedings under Sections 341, 323, 406, 429, 506, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code were set aside.

Implications

This judgment reinforces the principle that professionals acting in the ordinary course of their duties cannot be automatically imputed with criminal intent without specific evidence of collusion or fraud. It draws a clear distinction between civil wrongs and criminal offences, protecting innocent professionals from being dragged into litigation. The ruling underscores that criminal proceedings must be grounded in tangible material rather than casual allegations, even when serious penal sections are invoked in the FIR.