Third party cannot maintain criminal complaint for cheating or forgery against vendor of a sale deed.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a criminal proceeding for cheating and forgery can be maintained at the instance of a third party (prior purchaser) against a vendor who executes a sale deed in favor of a different purchaser while claiming ownership of the property.

The court held

The court held that the complaint at the instance of a third party was not maintainable under the settled principles of law.

It also directed

The court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the summoning order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Connection with Complaint Case No. 3095 of 2019.

01Facts

The petitioner, an 84-year-old man, executed a power of attorney in favor of one Atique Iqbal, who subsequently sold a parcel of land to a third party named Uttam Kumar.

¶ 3

The complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) filed a criminal complaint alleging that she had previously purchased the same land from her vendor and that the petitioner had claimed ownership and legal heirship of the original owner (Jamuna Prasad Sinha) based on a "wrong genealogy".

¶ 3

Following an inquiry, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, passed an order dated 03.01.2022, finding a prima facie case against the petitioner under Sections 323, 341, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶ 2, 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether a criminal proceeding for cheating and forgery can be maintained at the instance of a third party (prior purchaser) against a vendor who executes a sale deed in favor of a different purchaser while claiming ownership of the property.

¶ 5, 10

ii.2. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings in the present case amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

¶ 11

03Law Applied

If a person sells property erroneously claiming it as their own, only the defrauded purchaser can maintain a complaint for cheating; a third party who is not a party to the deed cannot (Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751).

¶ 5, 10

Reaffirmation of the Md. Ibrahim principle (Jit Vinayak Arolkar vs. State of Goa & Ors. (2025 INSC 31)).

¶ 7

Penal statutes should not be expanded by implication where no ambiguity exists (Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. (2018 Supreme (SC) 462)).

¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 323 Section 341 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471 Section 34

Indian Contract Act, 1872 Section 17

04Reasoning

The court observed that the crux of the allegation was that the petitioner sold land to Uttam Kumar that the complainant claimed to already own.

¶ 3

Applying the ratio from Md. Ibrahim, the court reasoned that since the complainant was a "third party" to the specific transaction between the petitioner and Uttam Kumar, she lacked the standing to bring criminal charges of cheating or forgery regarding that deed.

¶ 10-11

The court noted that there was no allegation of impersonation (as the petitioner represented himself as himself, even if his claim to parentage or title was disputed).

¶ 8-9

Consequently, the dispute was essentially civil in nature regarding title and genealogy, and the criminal process was being improperly utilized by a party external to the challenged contract.

¶ 11