Criminal proceedings against mere sale-deed witnesses quashed where the dispute was civil and the principal accused was discharged.

Opposite Party No. 2 alleged that the petitioners, along with co-accused Mahesh Rai and others, conspired to induce her husband to consume alcohol and fraudulently procured execution of a sale deed concerning land and a hotel belonging to her children, without consideration.

It was further alleged that the accused obtained the signature of her father-in-law on blank paper to usurp the property.

The petitioners were alleged principally to have accompanied Mahesh Rai to the Registry Office and to have acted as witnesses to the document.

The complaint related to alleged occurrences between 19 January 2016 and 28 February 2019, but was filed on 10 August 2021, without an adequate explanation for the delay.

The petitioners’ applications for discharge under Section 245 CrPC were rejected by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Begusarai, by order dated 7 May 2024 in Complaint Case No. 1006C of 2021.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the principal accused, Mahesh Rai, was discharged by a reasoned order dated 9 October 2025.

1. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who were alleged merely to be witnesses to and companions in the execution of the sale deed, disclosed the commission of any criminal offence warranting their prosecution?

2. Whether the Magistrate’s order rejecting the petitioners’ applications for discharge under Section 245 CrPC was sustainable after the principal accused had already been discharged?

3. Whether the complaint constituted an abuse of the criminal process where the dispute essentially concerned the validity of a registered sale deed and civil remedies were available?

The Court considered the discharge jurisdiction under Section 245 CrPC, under which an accused in a complaint case may be discharged where the evidence does not justify proceeding against him.

It applied the principle that allegations concerning fraudulent execution or cancellation of a sale deed ordinarily give rise to civil remedies and do not, without specific material showing the necessary criminal elements, automatically establish criminal liability.

The Court also relied on Harilal etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeals Nos. 2216–2217 of 2011, for the principle that unexplained delay requires the court to scrutinise the prosecution case carefully because delay may facilitate deliberation and embellishment.

Further, relying on Urmila Devi & Ors. v. Balram & Anr., 2025 INSC 915, particularly paragraph 8.6, the Court reiterated that criminal complaints cannot be used as a circuitous device to abuse the process of law when appropriate civil remedies have not been pursued.

The Court examined the complaint and the statements of CWs 1, 2 and 3, together with the Magistrate’s subsequent order discharging Mahesh Rai.

It found that the principal allegations concerned Mahesh Rai and the alleged fraudulent sale transaction, whereas the petitioners were attributed only the roles of accompanying the parties and witnessing the document.

Since the main accused had already been discharged after consideration of the complaint evidence, there was no sufficient basis to continue proceedings against persons whose alleged participation was even more limited.

The Court further treated the dispute as essentially civil in nature, observing that the complainant had not pursued cancellation or other civil remedies concerning the registered sale deed and had instead employed the complaint as a shortcut for exerting pressure and harassment.

The unexplained delay in challenging the transaction also weakened the justification for continuing the prosecution.

Accordingly, the order dated 7 May 2024 rejecting the petitioners’ discharge applications was quashed, and the criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.