Buyer’s Sons’ Cheating And Forgery Case Over 2.25 Decimals Of Land Quashed: Jharkhand HC Finds No Deception Or False Document Attributed To Them

The complainant alleged that his wife had agreed to sell a house and 10.25 decimals of land to the petitioners’ father for ₹61,00,000. Although ₹44,89,000 was paid by demand draft and ₹11,000 as advance, the sale deed covered only eight decimals; the remaining 2.25 decimals were allegedly neither paid for nor conveyed, and were later encroached upon.

On the complaint and inquiry materials, the Magistrate ordered proceedings against the petitioners under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B.

The petitioners relied on earlier proceedings concerning the same dispute, including a complaint by the complainant’s wife that had been quashed by the High Court, a separate complaint followed by a police final report for lack of evidence, and a pending civil suit.

They sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Section 420 IPC requires deceit and the inducement of the person deceived to part with property, as stated in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641.

A contractual breach constitutes cheating only where dishonest intention or deception existed at the inception; a later-developed intention is insufficient, as recognised in Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336, and Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 696.

Sections 467 and 468 IPC require forgery, which in turn requires the making of a false document under Section 464 IPC; the person charged must be its maker, as explained in Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581.

The Court also referred to Section 528 BNSS as the source of its quashing jurisdiction.

The Court also referred to the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where their continuation would amount to abuse of process.

The Court found no allegation that either petitioner deceived or induced the complainant or his wife to part with property; the alleged failure to complete the purchase of the remaining land did not, without the necessary allegation of deception, make out Section 420 IPC.

Nor was either petitioner alleged to have made a false document: the complaint concerned the incomplete purchase and conveyance of land, not the creation of a forged instrument.

The essential element of forgery was therefore absent, defeating the charges under Sections 467 and 468 IPC and, on the pleaded facts, the conspiracy charge under Section 120-B IPC.

The Court also considered that an earlier proceeding arising from the same allegations had been quashed, and concluded that continuation of the present case would be an abuse of process.

It allowed the petition and quashed, as against them, the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 318 of 2024, including the Magistrate’s order dated 26 November 2024.