Witnessing or drafting a deed alone does not establish criminal participation without knowledge and intent.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that Accused No. 1 sold a property to her under a registered sale deed dated 10 July 2013, then executed a gift deed for the same property in favour of Accused No. 2 on 24 November 2021.

The petitioners were Accused Nos. 3 to 5: Petitioners 1 and 2 allegedly witnessed the gift deed, and Petitioner 3 drafted it.

Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 166, 167, 405, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468, 470 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After the Magistrate took cognisance and issued summons, the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings against them under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS.

Whether the complaint, taken at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioners, given their alleged roles as witnesses to and drafter of the gift deed

Whether the allegations supported invoking Sections 166 and 167 IPC, or Section 34 IPC, against the petitioners

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 166, 167, 405, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468, 470 and 471 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, and its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS.

It applied the principle that quashing is warranted where, even accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the essential ingredients of an offence are not disclosed against the particular accused.

A witness’s signature or a deed writer’s preparation of a document, without material indicating knowledge of falsity and the requisite criminal intention, does not by itself establish participation in forgery or cheating; common intention likewise requires material from which shared intent may reasonably be inferred.

Sections 166 and 167 IPC could not be sustained against these petitioners absent an allegation that they were public servants acting in the discharge of official duties.

The complaint attributed to the petitioners only the acts of witnessing the gift deed or drafting it on a party’s instructions. It did not allege that they participated in the earlier sale, knew of Respondent No. 2’s ownership or possession, had prior dealings with her, benefited from the later transaction, or engaged in any communication or arrangement suggesting conspiracy or shared intent.

The Court therefore held that their roles, without further material showing knowledge of the earlier sale or intentional participation in creating a false document, did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the alleged property offences or Section 34 IPC.

The complaint also did not allege that the petitioners were public servants, defeating the basis for Sections 166 and 167 IPC.

It expressly left the proceedings against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 unaffected and expressed no opinion on the validity of either deed.