Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 418
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022)
S. ANAND ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
REPRESENTED BY ITS
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
AND ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant seeks to assail the common order
th
dated 11 August, 2022 passed by the High Court of
1
Judicature at Madras whereby, Crl.OP (MD) No.
10902 of 2019, preferred by the appellant under
2
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ,
came to be dismissed. By way of the said petition, the
appellant had sought to call for the records of
Signature Not Verified
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’
2
For short, “CrPC”.
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.04.27
19:04:28 IST
Reason:
1
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
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
th
Nadar, died on 19 September, 1988. His elder
brother, Balakrishnan, had died about one year prior
thereto. It was alleged that Ayyasamy Nadar had
nd
executed a partition deed dated 2 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
th
father on 12 September, 1988. However, according
to respondent No.2-complainant, no such Will could
have been executed on that date, since his father had
2
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
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
th
witnesses to create the fabricated Will dated 12
September, 1988, and sold the property comprised in
Survey No.217, L.N.S. Village, measuring about 1.31
th
acres, to A-2 to A-6 by sale deeds dated 18
December, 1998.
6. The said complaint was forwarded to Karur
Police Station, where FIR/Crime No.994 of 2004
th
came to be registered on 12 July, 2004 for the
offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420
3
and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , 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’.
3
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
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
th
conspiracy, created the forged Will dated 12
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 in question, they had verified the possession
4
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
and title of A-1 and thereafter purchased the
property. A-6, i.e., the appellant herein, specifically
claimed that he was about 25 years of age in the year
1998, when the sale deed was executed; that he had
been studying in Australia, and that he had no
involvement or knowledge about the alleged forgery
in the Will.
10. The High Court held that the issues raised in
the petition involved disputed questions of fact and
that the extreme step of quashing the criminal
proceedings was not warranted in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the quashing
petition filed under Section 482 CrPC came to be
dismissed by the High Court final order dated
vide
th
11 August, 2022, which is the subject matter of
challenge in the instant appeal by special leave.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
11. Learned senior counsel, Shri Arvind Varma,
appearing for the appellant, submitted that the entire
prosecution case, the appellant, rests on
qua
assumptions and conjectures and not on any legally
admissible material. It was urged that the appellant
was neither a party to the agreement to sale dated
th
13 July, 1995, nor is there any material on record
5
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
to show his role in the alleged fabrication of the Will
th
dated 12 September, 1988. The appellant was only
about 14-15 years of age when the disputed Will was
executed in 1988, and even at the time of execution
th
of the sale deed dated 18 December, 1998, he was a
young student who had been studying in Australia.
Thus, there is no material to establish any meeting of
minds between the buyers for consideration
including appellant and A-1 Raja @ Rajasekaran so
as to attract the charge of criminal conspiracy.
12. It was further contended that, even if the
prosecution case is accepted at its highest, the only
beneficiary of the alleged forged Will was A-1 Raja @
Rajasekaran, who is no more. The purchasers,
including the appellant, exercised due diligence and
had entered into the registered transactions for valid
consideration only after verifying the title and
possession of A-1 over the land in question. There is
no material in the chargesheet to connect the
appellant with the preparation of the Will or the use
thereof knowing it to be forged and he cannot be
made to face a criminal trial merely because he was
one of the purchasers of the land sold by the legatee
A1 by a registered sale deed.
6
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
13. Learned senior counsel lastly submitted that
the chargesheet is substantially founded on the
opinion of the handwriting expert, which was based
on comparison with a Xerox copy of the disputed Will
and not with the original document. It was urged that
otherwise also, the handwriting expert’s opinion is an
inherently weak piece of evidence and cannot,
without independent corroboration, form the sole
basis of a criminal prosecution. As the comparison
itself was not done with the original document, no
value can be attached to the expert report. The
dispute, at best, is civil in nature concerning title and
alienation of immovable property; no suit for
th
cancellation of the sale deed dated 18 December,
1998 was filed by respondent No.2-complainant, and
the criminal complaint was lodged after an inordinate
delay. Continuation of the proceedings, therefore,
would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
14. On these grounds, the appellant implored the
Court to set aside the impugned judgment and quash
the criminal proceedings sought to be taken against
the appellant in the Court below.
7
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
Submissions on behalf of the respondents
15. Per contra , learned Sr. AAG, Shri V.
Krishnamurthy appearing for the State and Mr. A.
Lakshminarayanan representing respondent No.2-
complainant opposed the contentions raised on
behalf of the appellant and submitted that the High
Court rightly refused to quash the criminal
proceedings at the threshold. It was urged that the
complaint, the material collected during investigation
and the final report contain credible evidence
disclosing necessary ingredients of offences of
forgery, cheating, use of forged documents and
criminal conspiracy. The allegation is not merely that
th
the Will dated 12 September, 1988 was forged, but
that the said Will was deliberately and knowingly
used as the foundation for alienating valuable
property belonging to Ayyasamy Nadar and his legal
heirs.
16. It was further submitted that the appellant,
being one of the purchasers under the sale deed
th
dated 18 December, 1998, cannot seek quashing of
proceedings by raising disputed questions of fact and
by relying upon his defence of being a bona fide
8
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
purchaser, absence of knowledge or lack of
participation in the conspiracy.
17. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the
handwriting expert’s opinion specifically indicated
that the disputed signature on the Will did not tally
with the admitted signatures of Ayyasamy Nadar.
Whether such opinion is sufficient, and whether it
stands corroborated by other material, are issues for
trial and cannot form grounds for quashing the
criminal proceedings at the threshold. It was further
pointed out that the proceedings have already
remained pending for several years; the chargesheet
was filed in 2018, and the trial has been stalled owing
to interim orders. Several accused persons have died
during the pendency of the proceedings, and any
further delay would seriously prejudice the
prosecution as well as respondent No.2-complainant.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal and
affirmation of the impugned judgment.
Discussion and Analysis
19. We have heard and thoughtfully considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
9
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
parties and have gone through the impugned order
and the material placed on record.
20. There is no dispute that A-2 to A-6 (A-6 being
the appellant herein), purchased the property in
th
question by way of registered sale deed/s dated 18
December, 1998. The sale deeds clearly demonstrate
that the sale was made for valuable consideration.
There is not even an iota of evidence on record to
show that the appellant had any role to play in the
th
alleged fabrication of the Will dated 12 September,
th
1988. The earlier agreement dated 13 July, 1995
was with A-2 to A-5.
21. The FSL report, on which heavy reliance was
placed by learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2-complainant as well as learned counsel
appearing for the State, indicates that the
comparison of the disputed signatures was made on
the basis of a xerox copy of the allegedly forged Will.
Thus, there exists a serious issue regarding the
evidentiary value and persuasive worth of the said
FSL report.
22. Be that as it may, the appellant, being a
purchaser of the subject property for valuable
consideration, cannot, in the facts of the present
10
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
case, be considered to be the person who offered
fraudulent inducement to respondent No.2-
complainant or made him to deliver some property or
part with valuable security so as to bring his acts
within the purview of fraudulent inducement and
cheating to gain property punishable under Section
420 IPC [corresponding Section 318(4) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023].
23. Admittedly, there is no privity of contract
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 in the preparation of the alleged forged
th
Will, or that the registered sale deed dated 18
December, 1998 was executed by him with
knowledge that the signatures on the Will were
forged.
24. As a matter of fact, even if the allegation of the
respondent No.2-complainant, that the Will was
forged, is found to be substantiated, the purchasers
of the property would be the persons aggrieved
because in such circumstances, their title over the
property in question would land in dispute, having
11
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
being acquired from the vendor who used the so-
called fabricated will to execute the registered sale
deeds. The situation at hand is squarely covered by
the judgment in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim
4
and Others v. State of Bihar and Another.
,
wherein this Court held as below: -
“20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a
property claiming ownership thereto, it may be
possible for the purchaser under such sale deed
to allege that the vendor has cheated him by
making a false representation of ownership and
fraudulently induced him to part with the sale
consideration. But in this case the complaint is
not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the
purchaser is made a co-accused.
21. It is not the case of the complainant that any
of the accused tried to deceive him either by
making a false or misleading representation or
by any other action or omission, nor is it his case
that they offered him any fraudulent or
dishonest inducement to deliver any property or
to consent to the retention thereof by any person
or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant
allege that the first appellant pretended to be the
complainant while executing the sale deeds.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused
by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the
second accused or the second accused by reason
of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and
fifth accused, by reason of being the witness,
scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale
deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.
4
(2009) 8 SCC 751
12
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
[…]
23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by
a person, purporting to convey a property which
is not his, as his property, is not making a false
document and therefore not forgery, we should
not be understood as holding that such an act
can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells
a property knowing that it does not belong to
him, and thereby defrauds the person who
purchased the property, the person defrauded,
that is, the purchaser, may complain that the
vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating.
But a third party who is not the purchaser under
the deed may not be able to make such
complaint.”
25. In wake of the above discussion, we are of the
firm opinion that allowing further prosecution of the
appellant in connection with Chargesheet No.03 of
th
2018 dated 26 September, 2018, filed in pursuance
th
of FIR/Case Crime No.994 of 2004 dated 12 July,
2004, would be wholly unjustified and would
tantamount to gross abuse of the process of the
Court.
26. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be, and is
th
hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 11
August, 2022 is set aside. As a consequence, all
proceedings qua the appellant only pending in C.C.
No.419 of 2018 in the Court of learned Judicial
13
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022
Magistrate No.II, Karur, are hereby quashed.
However, it is made clear that the proceedings shall
continue against the other accused.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 21, 2026.
14
Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of 2022