Criminal proceedings against mere attesting witnesses require specific material linking them to forgery or cheating.

The petitioners were accused in FIR No. 350/2016 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, pursuant to an order dated 11 July 2016 passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The allegations arose from a registered sale deed dated 10 May 2013 concerning Plot No. 43, Audyogik Nagar, Durg, executed in favour of co-accused Pratibha Borode. The petitioners’ admitted role was limited to signing the sale deed as attesting witnesses.

The complainant had also filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the sale deed was null and void. That suit was dismissed on 13 December 2020 for failure to prove invalidity of the sale deed, although the first appeal was stated to be pending.

The police filed charge-sheet No. 98/2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC, following which the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 12 September 2025 in Criminal Case No. 30511/2025.

Whether the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC against the petitioners, who were merely attesting witnesses to the sale deed.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising from the disputed registered sale deed and in the absence of specific material showing the petitioners’ fraudulent participation, amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court applied the principles governing quashing under Section 482 CrPC, particularly the categories identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, including cases where allegations, even if accepted in full, do not constitute an offence or where proceedings are manifestly mala fide or an abuse of process.

Relying on Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 9 SCC 1, and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, the Court held that quashing may be undertaken where unimpeachable material demonstrates that the prosecution cannot succeed and continuation of the trial would serve no useful purpose.

Under Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, a civil dispute given a criminal colour may be quashed to prevent abuse of process.

The Court also relied on Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 18 SCC 626, and Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, for the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a weapon of harassment.

Substantively, Section 420 IPC requires dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception and inducement causing delivery of property or prejudice; Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC require, respectively, forgery of a valuable security or specified document, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and knowing use of a forged document as genuine.

The Court found no specific allegation that the petitioners negotiated the transaction, induced the complainant, received the sale consideration, forged her signatures, prepared the disputed document, or knowingly used it as genuine.

Their mere status as attesting witnesses did not establish dishonest intention, participation in forgery, or common intention under Section 34 IPC.

The materials indicating payment by cheque, recognition of the transfer by the District Trade and Industries Centre, and dismissal of the civil suit demonstrated that the dispute principally concerned the validity and execution of the registered sale deed.

Although the civil proceedings did not automatically extinguish criminal liability, their significance, when combined with the absence of specific incriminating material and the lack of a conclusive questioned-document expert opinion connecting the petitioners to forgery, showed that the prosecution lacked the foundational facts necessary to constitute the alleged offences.

The Magistrate’s order directing registration of the FIR also failed to identify any particular role attributable to the petitioners.

Accordingly, accepting the prosecution case at face value, the essential ingredients of the charged offences were not made out against them, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

It held that the FIR and charge-sheet did not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC against the petitioners, whose role was confined to attesting the registered sale deed.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed FIR No. 350/2016, charge-sheet No. 98/2024, the cognizance order dated 12 September 2025, and all consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 30511/2025.

The petition was allowed without any order as to costs.