Back
Buyer Escapes Criminal Trap: Supreme Court Shields Innocent Purchaser in Forged Will Saga
In a decisive ruling that safeguards property buyers, the has quashed criminal proceedings against S. Anand, one of several purchasers in a decades-old family property dispute in Tamil Nadu. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta (with Justice Mehta penning the order) overturned a decision, emphasizing that mere purchase of property based on an allegedly forged Will does not invite criminal liability for forgery, cheating, or conspiracy. Cited as or , the judgment draws a clear line: buyers without knowledge or involvement are victims, not villains.
Roots of a Family Feud Unravel into Forgery Claims
The dispute traces back to , when Ayyasamy Nadar died in Karur, Tamil Nadu, allegedly in a comatose state shortly after a purported Will dated , surfaced. His son, the complainant (Respondent No. 2), claimed the Will was fabricated by his brother A-1 (Raja @ Rajasekaran, now deceased) and others to usurp 'A' Schedule property allotted via a partition deed.
Tensions escalated when the complainant's mother objected to patta transfer. Around , after rejecting a lowball purchase offer from some accused, A-1 allegedly conspired with attesting witnesses—including an advocate (A-7)—to forge the Will and sell 1.31 acres in Survey No. 217 via registered sale deeds on , to A-2 through A-6, including appellant Anand.
A complaint led to FIR No. 994/ at under . Investigation culminated in a chargesheet (C.C. No. 419/) adding , invoking conspiracy. Anand, then a 25-year-old student in Australia and a minor (14-15) at the Will's alleged forgery, sought quashing under . The High Court dismissed it on , citing factual disputes, prompting this SLP.
Purchaser's Defense: No Hand in Forgery, Just Good Faith Buy
Appellant S. Anand, via , argued the case rested on conjecture. He wasn't party to a 1995 agreement (involving A-2 to A-5), had no role in the Will's fabrication, and bought for valuable consideration after verifying title and possession. Lacking "" for conspiracy, and with A-1 as sole beneficiary, prosecution was .
Key jabs: Handwriting expert opinion from a Xerox copy (not original) was unreliable; delay in complaint; civil title dispute better suited for courts, as no suit challenged the sale deed. Anand stressed his youth and absence during key events.
Prosecution's Push: Trial Needed for Conspiracy Probe
The State (via ) and complainant () countered that FIR, investigation, and chargesheet disclosed forgery, cheating, and conspiracy ingredients. Purchasers couldn't evade via "disputed facts" or claims—issues for trial. report flagged mismatched signatures; delays prejudiced prosecution amid deaths of accused.
They urged against threshold quashing, noting the Will's knowing use alienated heir property.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: No Link, No Liability
The bench meticulously dissected the record: Sale deeds showed consideration; zero evidence tied Anand to Will fabrication (1995 agreement excluded him). report's Xerox basis undermined it. Critically, no privity between Anand and complainant—no inducement under .
Even assuming forgery, purchasers are aggrieved , their title imperiled by vendor's fraud—not deceivers. The ruling invokes , where this Court held third parties (non-purchasers) can't claim cheating against buyers; only defrauded purchasers can. Execution of sale by flawed title owner cheats the buyer, not outsiders.
No tangible material showed Anand's conspiracy or knowing use of forged Will. Prosecution?
"Wholly unjustified...
."
Key Observations from the Bench
"There is not even an iota of evidence on record to show that the appellant had any role to play in the alleged fabrication of the Will dated 12th September, ."
"The appellant, being a purchaser of the subject property for valuable consideration, cannot, in the facts of the present case, be considered to be the person who offered to respondent No.2-complainant... so as to bring his acts within the purview of... ."
"Admittedly, there is no between the appellant and respondent No.2-complainant. Neither the FIR nor the impugned order discloses availability of any tangible material to substantiate the allegation that the appellant had conspired..."
"As a matter of fact, even if the allegation... that the Will was forged, is found to be substantiated, the purchasers of the property would be the persons aggrieved because... their title... would land in dispute."
Victory for Buyers, Caveat for Others
The appeal succeeds: Impugned order set aside; proceedings in C.C. No. 419/ qua Anand quashed . Others proceed to trial. Practically, it shields good-faith buyers from protracted criminal harassment in property frauds, urging civil remedies for title clouds. Future cases demand concrete conspiracy proof against purchasers, curbing misuse of criminal law in civil disputes—echoing media summaries like LiveLaw's "Buyer Not Criminally Liable."
This red line fortifies property transactions: Verify, buy clean, sleep easy—unless forgery stains your own hands.
