Mere custody of title documents, without evidence of participation, does not establish forgery or cheating.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that properties originally purchased in 1999 had later been dealt with using a fabricated General Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deeds.

He stated that the original property documents had been entrusted to the petitioner for obtaining revenue entries.

The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 3 in Crime No. 66/2025, registered for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 471 and 34 of the IPC. He sought quashing of the FIR and complaint insofar as they concerned him.

The petitioner contended that the complaint and investigation disclosed no specific act connecting him to the alleged forgery, impersonation, cheating or use of forged documents.

Whether the complaint and material collected during investigation disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner, Accused No. 3.

Whether continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process warranting the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The High Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, referred to in the petition as corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the offences alleged under Sections 419, 420, 465, 471 and 34 of the IPC.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, as reiterated in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), proceedings may be quashed where allegations accepted at face value do not constitute an offence, or the allegations and material collected do not disclose an offence against the accused.

Cheating under Section 420 requires deception and dishonest inducement with the consequence contemplated by Section 415 IPC; Section 419 requires cheating by personation; and Sections 465 and 471 require, respectively, a connection to the making of a false document or the knowing use of a forged document as genuine.

The Court also relied on Chanchalpati Das v. State of West Bengal regarding the need for substantive material connecting an accused to alleged forgery, while clarifying that expert evidence is not invariably mandatory.

Section 34 IPC does not establish common intention merely because several persons are accused; material must support the particular accused’s participation in furtherance of that intention.

The complaint attributed to the petitioner only the earlier receipt of the original documents for the purpose of obtaining revenue entries.

It did not allege that he prepared or executed the GPA, impersonated anyone, induced Respondent No. 2 to part with property, participated in the sale deeds, or knowingly used a forged document.

Nor did the material placed before the Court identify further circumstances connecting his custody of the documents to the alleged transactions or establish participation in a common intention.

The Court therefore concluded that the civil or property background was not, by itself, decisive; rather, the absence of allegations and material satisfying the offences’ ingredients justified quashing as against this petitioner.

The investigation was permitted to continue against the other accused.

The Court expressed no opinion on the genuineness of the GPA or sale deeds, or on the culpability of the other accused, and left open such further lawful steps against the petitioner if cogent and legally admissible material emerged during investigation.