Purchaser Of Property For Valuable Consideration Cannot Be Accused Of Cheating Original Owner If Title Document Is Forged: Supreme Court

"If the Will was indeed forged, the purchasers would themselves be the persons aggrieved because in such circumstances, their title over the property in question would land in dispute," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that a bona fide purchaser of property for valuable consideration cannot be prosecuted for the offence of cheating the original owner, even if the underlying title document used for the sale is later alleged to be forged.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that in such transactions, it is the purchaser who becomes the victim of the fraud if the vendor’s title is found to be defective.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the son of a deceased property owner, alleging that a Will dated September 12, 1988, purportedly executed by his father, was forged. The complainant alleged that the legatee under the forged Will (A-1) conspired with several others to sell the property to the appellant and four others via registered sale deeds in 1998. The appellant, who was one of the purchasers, sought the quashing of criminal proceedings for forgery, cheating, and conspiracy.

The primary questions before the Court were whether a purchaser can be held liable for cheating the original owner under Section 420 IPC when the sale is based on a forged document, and whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

No Material Connecting Appellant To The Alleged Forgery

The Court noted that there was no evidence on record to link the appellant to the fabrication of the disputed Will. The bench pointed out that the appellant was merely 14 or 15 years old when the Will was allegedly forged in 1988. Furthermore, at the time the sale deed was executed in 1998, the appellant was a student residing in Australia, making his involvement in a criminal conspiracy highly improbable.

Court Notes Lack Of Knowledge Or Intent

The bench emphasized that the sale deeds clearly demonstrated that the transaction was made for valuable consideration. The Court found no material to suggest that the appellant had any knowledge that the Will was forged or that he had made any fraudulent inducement to the complainant. There was no privity of contract between the appellant and the complainant that could justify a charge of cheating.

Handwriting Expert's Opinion Based On Photocopy Is Weak Evidence

Addressing the FSL report relied upon by the prosecution, the Court observed that the handwriting expert had compared the disputed signatures using a xerox copy of the Will rather than the original document. The bench held that this raised a serious issue regarding the evidentiary value of the report. The Court reiterated that an expert's opinion is an inherently weak piece of evidence and cannot form the sole basis for a criminal trial without independent corroboration.

"Handwriting expert’s opinion is an inherently weak piece of evidence and cannot, without independent corroboration, form the sole basis of a criminal prosecution."

Purchaser Cannot Be Accused Of Cheating The Original Owner

The Court applied the ratio from Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, clarifying the scope of Section 420 IPC in property transactions. It held that for an offence of cheating to be made out, the accused must have deceived the complainant or induced them to part with property. In this case, the appellant did not interact with the complainant; he purchased the land from the holder of a Will.

Purchaser Is The Aggrieved Party In Case Of Forged Title

The bench observed that if a vendor sells property using a forged title document, the person defrauded is the purchaser, not the original owner or their heirs. The original owner may have a civil claim, but they cannot maintain a criminal complaint of cheating against the purchaser who has paid valuable consideration for the land. The Court noted that the purchasers would be the ones whose title becomes disputed and thus are the actual victims.

"A third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint [of cheating against the purchaser]."

Continuation Of Proceedings Is An Abuse Of Process

Concluding that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that the criminal charges against the appellant were built on "assumptions and conjectures," the Court held that the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC. The bench found that allowing the trial to continue against the appellant would result in a gross miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order. All criminal proceedings pending against the appellant in C.C. No. 419 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Karur, were quashed. The Court directed that the trial may continue against the other accused persons.

Date of Decision: 21 April 2026