A subsequent purchaser cannot face forgery and conspiracy charges absent specific allegations of participation.

The dispute concerned land bearing Survey No. 1835 at Borsad, originally recorded in the name of Kanchanbhai Dhanabhai Patel, who died on 10 May 1988.

The FIR alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 conspired to impersonate the deceased owner, create forged documents, and execute a fictitious sale deed dated 22 July 2013, registered as Sale Deed No. 1315/2013.

Mutation Entry No. 48246 was thereafter recorded, and accused No. 1 subsequently executed a registered sale deed dated 13 November 2013 in favour of the subsequent purchaser, registered as Sale Deed No. 1952/2013.

The applicant claimed to be a subsequent purchaser from Sunitaben, who had purchased the property under the earlier sale deed, and asserted that he had no involvement in the alleged forgery or conspiracy.

The applicant also submitted that the property had subsequently been returned to Sunitaben and then to the original owner, resulting in settlement of the dispute.

He sought quashing of FIR C.R. No. I-39/17 registered at Borsad City Police Station for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.

The Court applied Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, which respectively concern forgery, forgery of valuable security or specified documents, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and using a forged document as genuine.

The foundational requirement for these offences is the making, preparation, execution or knowing use of a false or forged document.

Section 120-B of the IPC requires material indicating an agreement or conspiracy to commit an offence.

The Court further applied the principle that a subsequent purchaser cannot be criminally liable for an earlier alleged forgery merely because he acquired property under a document whose title was subsequently found to be clouded, unless specific allegations or material establish his participation in the forged transaction.

The Court also proceeded on the quashing principle that criminal proceedings may be terminated where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

The Court noted that the applicant’s purchase from Sunitaben was undisputed, and that the FIR contained no specific allegation that he had impersonated Kanchanbhai, prepared or executed a forged document, or knowingly used a forged document as genuine.

Mere acquisition of property from a person whose title was disputed or clouded did not, without more, establish forgery or participation in the original fraudulent transaction.

Since forgery was not made out against the applicant, the connected offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 also could not be sustained.

Similarly, the absence of specific material showing the applicant’s agreement or participation in the alleged conspiracy negated the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC.

The Court therefore found that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant would not be justified.

The application was allowed, and FIR C.R. No. I-39/17 registered with Borsad City Police Station, District Anand, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside qua the applicant.

Rule was made absolute to that extent.