A deed writer’s professional role alone does not establish criminal liability absent mens rea or collusion.

Opposite Party No. 2 lodged Manpur P.S. Case No. 38 of 2020 alleging that co-accused Brajbhushan Ojha executed a registered sale deed in favour of Shivnandan Ram despite lacking valid ownership over the land. The petitioner, Rajesh Ranjan, was impleaded on the allegation that he acted as the Katib/deed writer, while other accused persons acted as witnesses, identifiers, or otherwise colluded in preparation of the sale deed through fraudulent means.

The informant further alleged that Brajbhushan Ojha had admitted his mistake before a panchayat and thereafter, when asked to execute a corrective registry, became involved in a physical altercation with his family members.

The petitioner contended that he had merely drafted the sale deed in the course of his professional duty, had not participated in any assault, and had no role in the alleged land dispute or fraud.

The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, West Champaran at Bettiah, took cognizance on 27 June 2022 under Sections 341, 323, 406, 429, 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner sought quashing of the cognizance order insofar as it related to him.

Whether the allegations in the FIR and accompanying materials disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 406, 429, 506 and 504 IPC by the petitioner, who was merely the deed writer of the disputed sale deed?

Whether the cognizance order was liable to be quashed under the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where the allegations against the petitioner were bald and unsupported by tangible material?

The Court considered the ingredients of Sections 341, 323, 406, 429, 506 and 504 IPC. Liability under these provisions requires specific factual allegations connecting the accused with wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal breach of trust, causing loss or injury to an animal, criminal intimidation, or intentional insult, respectively; criminal breach of trust additionally requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation or conversion.

Mere professional participation in drafting a document does not, without material showing knowledge, dishonest intention, or active participation in fraud, establish criminal liability.

The Court applied the quashing principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, under which criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute an offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

The Court found that the principal allegations concerned Brajbhushan Ojha’s execution of the sale deed and the subsequent physical altercation involving him and his family members; the petitioner was not alleged to have assaulted, restrained, threatened, or insulted the informant.

His role was limited to acting as the deed writer in the performance of his professional duty. The allegation of collusion was held to be bald and unsupported by tangible material, and no mens rea or fraudulent intention was shown against him.

Further, the essential element of entrustment required for criminal breach of trust was absent, and the petitioner could not be attributed an intention to commit that offence merely because he drafted the deed.

Since the allegations, even on their face, did not make out the charged offences against the petitioner, the case fell within the principles governing quashing under Bhajan Lal.

Accordingly, the order dated 27 June 2022 taking cognizance in Manpur P.S. Case No. 38 of 2020 was quashed insofar as it related to Rajesh Ranjan, and the criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.