Execution of Sale Deed Without Ownership Does Not Constitute Forgery or Cheating Against Third Parties

The petitioner, Ankit Kumar, was accused in Karra P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026 for allegedly purchasing land from a co-accused, Shaukat Ansari.

It was alleged that Ansari sold the land using a false genealogy, claiming to be the sole heir of the original owner.

The FIR was registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 351(2), 351(3), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS/BNS), 2023.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings, arguing that he was the purchaser, not the perpetrator of fraud, and that the informant had suppressed the fact of a prior pending complaint case on the same facts.

1. Whether the execution of a sale deed by a person claiming ownership of a property that does not belong to him constitutes "making a false document" or forgery under the BNS.

2. Whether a third party (not the purchaser) can maintain a criminal complaint of cheating against the purchaser of such property.

3. Whether the suppression of a prior complaint case by the informant constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

The court primarily applied the principle from Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009), holding that executing a document for property one does not own is not "forgery" unless there is impersonation; the defrauded party is the purchaser, not a third party.

It utilized Sections 316(2) (Cheating) and 318(4) of the BNSS regarding dishonest inducement.

It further relied on Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), which establishes that suppression of material facts by a litigant is an abuse of the court's process.

The court reasoned that since the co-accused (vendor) claimed ownership himself and did not impersonate anyone else, the sale deed did not constitute a "false document" as per the definition corresponding to Section 464 IPC (now Section 335 BNS).

The court noted that the petitioner was the purchaser; under the Mohammed Ibrahim precedent, only a purchaser can claim to be cheated by a vendor—a third party (the informant) cannot maintain such a claim against the purchaser when no property was entrusted or delivered by said informant to the petitioner.

Consequently, no offence of forgery (Section 338 BNS) was attracted.

The court found the informant's failure to disclose the prior Complaint Case No. 24 of 2026 to be a "heavy-handed" abuse of process.

The court held that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding and the FIR in Karra P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026 specifically against the petitioner.