Mere attestation of an agreement to sell, without criminal participation, attracts no criminal liability.

Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR against the applicant and other accused persons alleging that Aiyaz had entered into an agreement to sell land with him on 13 May 2013 and had received ₹20 lakhs as earnest money.

It was alleged that the accused subsequently cheated him and threatened him when he demanded return of his money.

The FIR was registered on 18 September 2014 under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 120-B IPC.

After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet, and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, passed the summoning order dated 11 May 2015.

The applicant invoked Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, summoning order and criminal proceedings.

He contended that he was merely a witness to the agreement to sell, was neither a beneficiary nor a recipient of any money, and had no criminal role.

It was further submitted that a sale deed had subsequently been executed by Aiyaz in favour of Suleman on 8 July 2013 pursuant to the agreement.

The State also fairly conceded that the applicant was merely a witness to the agreement to sell.

Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 120-B IPC against the applicant, who was allegedly only a witness to the agreement to sell, disclosed any criminal offence warranting his prosecution?

Whether continuation of the charge-sheet, summoning order and criminal proceedings against the applicant amounted to an abuse of the process of law, justifying exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where such intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

The Court considered the ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 120-B IPC and held that mere presence as a witness to an agreement to sell, without evidence of receipt of money, benefit, dishonest inducement, criminal breach of trust, threat or participation in a conspiracy, does not attract criminal liability.

It also recognised that a dispute arising from land dealings, particularly where the transaction had culminated in execution of a sale deed, was essentially civil in nature on the facts presented.

The Court examined the agreement to sell and found that the applicant’s role was confined to being a witness; he was not a party or beneficiary to the transaction and had not received any amount.

The subsequent execution of the sale deed by Aiyaz in favour of Suleman further undermined the allegation that the applicant had participated in the alleged cheating or breach of trust.

Since the allegations and material did not disclose any substantive criminal conduct by the applicant, and the dispute principally concerned recovery of money arising from a land transaction, the Court concluded that continuation of the prosecution against him would constitute an abuse of process.

The State’s concession that the applicant was merely a witness reinforced this conclusion.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed the charge-sheet dated 30 March 2015, the summoning order dated 11 May 2015, and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1154 of 2015 arising from Case Crime No. 337 of 2014, insofar as they related to the applicant.

The application was accordingly allowed.