Criminal proceedings quashed where applicants acted as bona fide purchasers and guarantors misled by forged title documents

The applicant, Ritesh Jaiswal, sought to quash a chargesheet filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant’s parents (Vinod and Aarti Jaiswal) attempted to obtain a loan of ₹10 lakhs from the State Bank of Patiala using forged land documents belonging to deceased persons (Moolchand and others).

The applicant was named as a guarantor in the loan application.

An individual named Vikram Asthana claimed to be the power-of-attorney holder for the deceased Moolchand and entered into an agreement to sell with Aarti Jaiswal.

When the bank manager conducted a site visit, he discovered the original owners had died in 1990 and their heirs had not authorized any sale.

A co-accused, Thakurji, allegedly impersonated the deceased Moolchand at the bank.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and evidence collected prima facie constitute an offence against the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.

2. Whether the applicant can be held liable for forgery and cheating when he was a proposed guarantor and allegedly acted under a bona fide belief in the genuineness of documents provided by a third party.

The Court applied Section 482 of the CrPC regarding inherent powers to prevent abuse of process, citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

For forgery (Sections 463, 464, 467 IPC), it relied on Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, holding that a person cannot be charged with forgery unless they are the "maker" of the false document.

For cheating (Section 420 IPC), it applied principles from Mariam Fasihuddin v. State, requiring the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention (mens rea) from the inception of the transaction.

The Court noted that mere execution of a deed by a person without title does not constitute forgery unless there is impersonation or unauthorized execution on behalf of another.

The Court found that the primary perpetrator of the fraud was Vikram Asthana, who fabricated a power-of-attorney from a man deceased for 17 years.

The applicant and his parents were deemed to be "befooled" by Asthana, as evidenced by the fact that they paid an advance of ₹50,000 and sought a bank loan which would have resulted in no valid title being transferred to them.

Crucially, the bank’s own advocate, Shri Ashutosh Garga, had vetted the documents and certified them as genuine in a legal opinion, failing to detect the forgery himself.

The Court reasoned that if a legal professional could not detect the fabrication, a layman borrower/guarantor cannot be attributed with criminal intent.

As the applicant did not sign the forged family settlement and did not impersonate anyone, the essential ingredients of forgery and cheating were missing.

The Court allowed the application and quashed the chargesheet against Ritesh Jaiswal.

The trial court was directed to proceed against the remaining surviving accused.

The Court granted the applicant’s mother (Aarti Jaiswal) liberty to move a discharge application, noting her case stood on the same footing.