Absence of mens rea and prompt remedial action by a bona fide purchaser negates criminal liability for fraud.

The petitioner, Dhruv Goyal, entered into a registered sale deed on 22.10.2024 to purchase 0.4180 hectares of land from an individual posing as Madho Singh Sagar.

The petitioner paid Rs. 10,00,000 as consideration (half in cash, half by cheque).

On the same day, the petitioner discovered the seller was an impersonator and immediately requested the Sub-Registrar to withhold further action.

He subsequently lodged police complaints on 28.10.2024 and 07.11.2024 and filed a civil suit for recovery and declaration of the deed as void on 05.11.2024.

Despite these remedial actions, respondent No. 4 (the actual owner) filed an FIR (Crime No. 82/2025) implicating the petitioner under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(1), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner constitute an abuse of the process of law when the petitioner claims to be a bona fide victim of the same fraud.

2. Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy under the BNS against the petitioner.

The Court primarily applied the principles governing the quashment of criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specifically following the landmark precedent of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which permits quashing where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence or where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide.

It further interpreted the penal provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically noting that offences involving cheating or conspiracy require the presence of mens rea (guilty mind) or active participation.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s conduct was entirely inconsistent with criminal intent.

Far from acting as a co-conspirator, the petitioner took proactive steps—approaching the Sub-Registrar, filing police reports, and initiating a civil suit—long before the original owner took action.

The Court noted that the FIR failed to attribute any specific overt act to the petitioner, such as arranging false IDs or prior knowledge of the impersonation.

Relying on the principle that a mere purchase of property tainted by fraud does not ipso facto attract criminal liability without evidence of connivance, the Court found that the dispute was essentially civil in nature.

The petitioner’s explicit support for the true owner in civil litigation further negated the possibility of a criminal design.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 82/2025 registered at Police Station Bhitarwar, Gwalior, insofar as it related to the petitioner, along with all consequential proceedings.

The Court clarified that the investigation against other accused persons shall continue.