Criminal proceedings against a subsequent purchaser require prima facie evidence of involvement in the alleged forgery.

Respondents 2 and 3 alleged that accused No. 2 impersonated himself as the only son of Allalappa and sold Allalappa’s property to accused No. 1 in 1985; accused No. 1 then sold it to the petitioner and her husband in 1991.

The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide purchaser and had instituted a pending civil suit concerning the property; proceedings over the revenue entries were also pending.

On the respondents’ private complaint, the Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police registered an FIR and, after investigation, filed a ‘B’ report. The Magistrate rejected that report, relied on the complainant’s sworn statement, and took cognizance against the petitioner and the other accused.

The petitioner sought to quash the Magistrate’s order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether the allegations and material on record disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner for the alleged IPC offences, notwithstanding the police ‘B’ report.

Whether the Magistrate’s rejection of the ‘B’ report and taking of cognizance against the petitioner warranted interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Under the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even accepted at face value, do not disclose an offence, or where proceedings are manifestly mala fide and instituted to wreak vengeance.

The Court also referred to Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, noting that although courts ordinarily should not interfere at the investigation stage, interference is warranted where the allegations disclose no cognizable offence or the proceedings amount to an abuse of process.

Relying on Mohammed Ali v. State of U.P. and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, the Court stated that, in an apparently vexatious case, the court may consider the surrounding circumstances and investigation materials, while avoiding an assessment of evidence that is ordinarily for trial.

The alleged offences were under Sections 415, 416, 420, 463, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court noted that the alleged impersonation and 1985 sale were attributed to accused No. 2, whereas the petitioner acquired the property under a 1991 sale deed and was not alleged to have participated in the original impersonation or forgery.

The petitioner had been in possession and the revenue entries had been changed in her favour; the parties’ competing claims were also being pursued in civil and revenue proceedings.

The police had examined witnesses and property documents before filing the ‘B’ report, while the sworn statement relied on by the Magistrate merely repeated the complaint’s allegations.

Considering these circumstances, the Court concluded that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and that continuing the prosecution against her would constitute an abuse of process.

The respondents’ contentions concerning fabrication and impersonation were left open for them to urge before the Deputy Commissioner and in the pending civil suit.