FIR Quashed Against Purchaser After Complainant Confirmed the Disputed Sale by Registered Deed

The complainant alleged that he had granted Accused No. 1 a power of attorney to develop land but not to sell it.

He further alleged that Accused No. 1 altered the power of attorney and, after its revocation, used the altered document to sell the land to Petitioner No. 2, his sister-in-law, through a sale deed dated 10 June 2014.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.

The complainant later executed a registered confirmation deed accepting the sale deed and entered into a compromise agreement, both dated 9 December 2014.

The petition had earlier been dismissed as to both petitioners; it was restored only as to Petitioner No. 2 and not restored as to Petitioner No. 1.

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC as against Petitioner No. 2, in light of the complainant’s subsequent registered confirmation of the sale and compromise.

Whether the Court should determine the merits of the allegations against Petitioner No. 1, whose petition had not been restored.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in an appropriate case.

The FIR invoked Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC, concerning criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery-related offences, use of a forged document as genuine, and criminal conspiracy.

The judgment cited no precedent and did not separately set out the elements of those offences; it concluded, on the facts before it, that no case under the alleged provisions was made out against Petitioner No. 2.

The Court relied on the complainant’s registered confirmation deed, which expressly accepted the sale deed executed in favour of Petitioner No. 2, and the parties’ compromise agreement, both dated 9 December 2014.

In the Court’s view, those documents meant that no case under the alleged IPC provisions was made out against Petitioner No. 2, warranting quashing of the proceedings against her.

The Court did not assess the merits of the allegations against Petitioner No. 1; it left those allegations, including the contentions concerning permissions, open and permitted the investigating agency to proceed against him.

The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside qua her, and the Rule was made absolute to that extent.

The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the case against Petitioner No. 1, and the investigating agency remained free to proceed against him.