Buyer Not Criminally Liable for Forged Will in Vendor’s Title Chain Without Knowledge or Participation: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Cheating and Forgery FIR
Case Name: Tejinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: September 15, 2026
Citation: CRM-M No. 36907 of 2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a person who purchases property through a registered sale deed cannot be prosecuted for cheating, forgery, use of a forged document and criminal conspiracy merely because the vendor’s title is subsequently alleged to have originated from a forged Will. In the absence of specific material showing that the purchaser participated in preparing the forged document, knew about its forged character or knowingly used it as genuine, the foundational ingredients of Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are not established.
For an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be fraudulent or dishonest inducement, delivery of property pursuant to such inducement and dishonest intention at the inception. A subsequent purchaser who neither induced the complainant to part with property nor had any contractual relationship with the complainant cannot be prosecuted for cheating merely because a defect is later alleged in the vendor’s title.
Similarly, mere purchase of property under a registered sale deed does not amount to preparing a false document or using a forged document. Criminal liability for forgery cannot be inferred solely from the purchaser’s presence in a later transaction. The prosecution must produce tangible material showing participation in the forgery, knowledge of the forged document or a conscious role in the alleged conspiracy.
The Court further held that the pendency of a discharge application before the Trial Court does not bar the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The scope of discharge proceedings is distinct from that of a petition for quashing. In quashing proceedings, the accused may raise the broader ground of abuse of process and, in appropriate cases, rely upon unimpeachable documents outside the charge-sheet.
Summary: The dispute concerned Kothi No. 205 situated at Navi Basti, Cinema Road, Nabha. The complainant and her sisters, including Paramjit Kaur and Avtar Kaur Jawanda, were daughters of Ujagar Singh. According to the complainant, Avtar Kaur was unmarried and had looked after their father. After Ujagar Singh’s death, a dispute arose among the sisters regarding his immovable properties.
The complainant alleged that Paramjit Kaur obtained ownership of Kothi No. 205 on the basis of a Will bearing forged signatures of Ujagar Singh. The property was subsequently transferred to Paramjit Kaur’s son, Kulwinder Singh. Kulwinder Singh thereafter sold it to the petitioner, Tejinder Kaur, who later transferred it to Baljinder Kaur.
On the complainant’s allegations that the ownership had been changed through a forged Will, fabricated documents and fraudulent registrations, FIR No. 13 dated February 10, 2016 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings against her. She asserted that she was a bona fide purchaser who had acquired the property from Kulwinder Singh through a registered sale deed dated January 11, 2012 for ₹20 lakh. Of this amount, ₹17.50 lakh was paid through a demand draft, and she had obtained a loan from Axis Bank to finance the purchase. She subsequently sold the property to Baljinder Kaur through a registered sale deed dated July 18, 2014 for ₹23 lakh.
The State and the complainant opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner was part of the disputed chain of transactions and that the investigation had resulted in the presentation of a charge-sheet. They also argued that her discharge application was pending before the Trial Court and that she could raise her defence there.
The High Court found no specific allegation that the petitioner had prepared or participated in the fabrication of the disputed Will. There was also no material indicating that she knew the Will was forged when she purchased the property or that she knowingly used it as a genuine document. Her alleged involvement rested essentially upon her status as a subsequent purchaser who later resold the property.
The Court observed that the petitioner had acquired the property through a registered sale deed for substantial consideration, most of which was paid through a demand draft, and had obtained a bank loan for the transaction. Without conducting a mini-trial, these documents could be considered for the limited purpose of determining whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were disclosed.
Relying upon S. Anand v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 702, and Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Court held that a purchaser for valuable consideration cannot be prosecuted for cheating or forgery merely because the vendor’s title was derived from an allegedly forged document. There must be material connecting the purchaser with the creation of the forged document or showing knowledge of its forged character.
The Court also rejected the objection based on the pending discharge application. Relying upon Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani and Mukesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it held that the availability or invocation of the remedy of discharge does not prevent the High Court from quashing proceedings that amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 13 dated February 10, 2016, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala, along with all consequential proceedings, insofar as they concerned Tejinder Kaur.