Criminal proceedings against a purchaser cannot continue absent prima facie allegations of forgery or cheating.

Respondent No. 2 complained that Kempamma and Jayamma falsely claimed to be the wife and daughter of his uncle, Hanumantharayappa, and, in collusion with the petitioner and others, entered into a registered sale agreement dated 10 August 2016 concerning four parcels of land.

The police registered Crime No. 262/2024 against the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC.

The petitioner sought quashing, contending that he was a bona fide purchaser and that the dispute concerned title to the land. A decree in favour of the alleged vendors had been set aside in appeal, and their second appeal was pending before the High Court.

The State opposed quashing on the ground that investigation was at an early stage and that the petitioner was alleged to have colluded with the vendors.

Whether the complaint and available material disclosed a prima facie case of cheating or forgery against the petitioner, a purchaser under the sale agreement.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the context of the pending civil dispute over the property, would amount to an abuse of process warranting quashing.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to consider whether the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed; the petition was also described as filed under Section 528 BNSS.

It relied on the principles quoted from Bikku Bhai Govinda Bhai v. State of Gujarat, SLP (Crl.) No. 15537/2023 (22 May 2026), and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: criminal proceedings may be quashed where, among other circumstances, the allegations fail to disclose the essential ingredients of an offence, the dispute is predominantly civil, or continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process.

The Court also referred to Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra for the general restraint against interference at the investigation stage, subject to recognised grounds for quashing, and to Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058, concerning the effect of proceedings unsupported by prima facie material on a person’s rights and liberty.

The Court noted that the complaint identified the petitioner as a party to the 2016 sale agreement but found no prima facie allegation that he himself committed the alleged forgery; the alleged false claims of family relationship were attributed to the vendors.

It also considered that the parties’ competing claims to the land were being litigated in civil proceedings, including a pending second appeal.

In those circumstances, the Court concluded that the material did not justify continuing the criminal case against the petitioner and that doing so would amount to an abuse of process, notwithstanding the State’s submission that the investigation was at an early stage.

It quashed the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. 1 in Crime No. 262/2024 for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC, pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala.