Criminal proceedings quashed where petitioner neither received consideration nor executed the sale agreement.

The complainant alleged that the accused persons induced him to purchase land. Co-accused Mangal Rai negotiated the transaction, received ₹4,46,000 in cash and ₹1,20,000 by cheque, and was the executant of the relevant agreement and sale deed. It was further alleged that the petitioner and co-accused Arvind Kumar Singh fraudulently transferred land belonging to a fictitious owner in favour of the complainant by using forged documents.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VI, Bhojpur, Ara, took cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 406, 420, 323, 387 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 2 May 2017 in Trial No. 1177 of 2017 arising from Complaint Case No. 549(C) of 2017. The petitioner sought quashing of the cognizance order, contending that he was neither an executant of the agreement or sale deed nor the recipient of the consideration.

1. Whether the allegations and materials disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 420, 323, 387 and 120-B of the IPC against the petitioner so as to justify taking cognizance.

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in circumstances substantially arising from a land-sale dispute, constituted an abuse of the process of court warranting exercise of the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 406, 420, 323, 387 and 120-B of the IPC.

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, concerning the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings where continuation would amount to abuse of process or where the prosecution is vexatious or malicious. The Court also considered Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, cited for the principle that the existence of a civil remedy does not, by itself, bar institution of a criminal case. Applying Mala Chaudhary v. State of Telangana, 2025 INSC 870, the Court held that failure to honour a staggered payment arrangement or execute a sale deed does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust unless dishonest intention existed at the inception of the transaction.

The Court found that, on the complainant’s own allegations, the entire consideration was paid either in cash to or directly credited into the account of co-accused Mangal Rai, who was also the signatory to the agreement and executant of the sale deed. The petitioner was therefore not shown to have received the money or played a substantive role in the contractual transaction.

Although there was an allegation that signatures had been forcibly obtained on certain papers, those papers had not been converted into valuable security. In light of the principle that dishonest intention must exist from the inception to sustain cheating or criminal breach of trust, the allegations did not establish the necessary criminal ingredients against the petitioner. The Court accordingly treated the prosecution against him as unsustainable and found that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

The proceedings against the other co-accused were not disturbed, and the Registry was directed to transmit the trial-court records for their trial.