Criminal proceedings against bona fide purchasers cannot continue absent independent allegations after quashing against the principal accused.

The petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7, sought quashing of FIR I-33 of 2015 registered at Changodar Police Station for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, along with the charge-sheet dated 6 December 2016 and Criminal Case No. 8402 of 2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanand.

The prosecution arose from allegations that accused No. 1, Nandlal J. Khanchandani, had executed sale deeds on the basis of a forged power of attorney purportedly issued by the original owners, including the complainant’s family members.

The petitioners had purchased part of the disputed land through a registered sale deed dated 24 February 2004 for consideration, from the power-of-attorney holder, after verifying the notarised power of attorney before the Sub-Registrar.

The principal accused, namely the power-of-attorney holder, had already obtained quashing of the proceedings in earlier proceedings decided by a Coordinate Bench on 18 November 2021, and that order had attained finality.

The complainant, despite service of notice, did not appear or oppose the present petition.

No civil suit seeking cancellation of the petitioners’ sale deed had been filed.

Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who were alleged to be purchasers of the land through the principal accused’s purportedly forged power of attorney, should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Whether continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law when the proceedings against the principal accused had already been quashed and no civil challenge had been brought against the petitioners’ registered sale deed.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which preserve the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The alleged offences were under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, concerning forgery, use of forged documents and criminal conspiracy.

The Court also relied upon the Coordinate Bench’s judgment dated 18 November 2021 in Special Criminal Application No. 3078 of 2015 and allied matters, by which proceedings against the principal power-of-attorney holder had been terminated; that decision had attained finality.

The governing principle applied was that criminal proceedings may be quashed where, in light of the undisputed circumstances, their continuation would serve no legitimate purpose and amount to an abuse of the court’s process.

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioners were limited to their having purchased the land from the power-of-attorney holder on the basis of the disputed power of attorney.

The petitioners’ purchase was through a registered sale deed for consideration, and they had verified the notarised power of attorney before the registering authority.

Since the criminal proceedings against the principal accused had already been quashed and that order was final, the foundation of the allegations against the petitioners was substantially removed.

The Court further noted the substantial lapse of time, the subsequent non-agricultural/industrial use of the land, the complainant’s failure to oppose the petition, and the absence of any civil action seeking cancellation of the sale deed.

In these circumstances, continuing the prosecution against the petitioners would be a gross abuse of process and would not advance the administration of criminal justice.

It held that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners was an abuse of the process of law and constituted a fit case for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Accordingly, FIR I-33 of 2015 registered with Changodar Police Station was quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.

The consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 8402 of 2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanand, were also quashed qua the petitioners, and the application was allowed.