Certification of a subsequent sale entry, without involvement in alleged forgery, attracts no criminal liability.

The complainant alleged that land was fraudulently transferred through a sale deed executed by Accused No. 1, acting as power-of-attorney holder for an heir, in favour of his wife, Accused No. 2.

The mutation entry reflecting that transaction (Entry No. 1510) was certified by another officer in 2008.

Accused No. 2 later sold the land to Accused No. 3, and the applicant, then a Circle Officer, certified the resulting mutation entry (Entry No. 1647) in 2012.

The complainant alleged that the applicant and others were involved in the fraudulent transactions and lodged an FIR under Sections 192, 193, 420, 424, 468 and 471 IPC.

The applicant sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, contending that his role was limited to certifying the later entry, based on the sale deed and a Collector’s order, and that he had no involvement in the earlier transaction or entry.

Whether the allegations and material concerning the applicant disclosed the ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 192, 193, 420, 424, 468 and 471 IPC.

Whether continuation of the investigation and proceedings against the applicant amounted to an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court considered Sections 192, 193, 420, 424, 468 and 471 IPC, concerning fabrication of false evidence, punishment for such fabrication, cheating, fraudulent removal or concealment of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and use of a forged document as genuine, respectively.

It applied the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, under which proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or continuation would amount to abuse of process.

The Court distinguished the earlier mutation entry, which had been certified by another officer, from the later entry certified by the applicant.

It found that the applicant’s act related to recording the subsequent sale deed from Accused No. 2 to Accused No. 3 and did not implicate him in the alleged execution or use of the power of attorney underlying the earlier transaction.

On that basis, the Court held that the applicant’s conduct did not attract the ingredients of the offences alleged and that continuing the investigation and trial against him would be an abuse of process under the Bhajan Lal principles.

The Rule was made absolute to that extent.