The buyer not criminally liable forged Will principle was recently reinforced by the Supreme Court in a landmark ruling. The Court clarified that a purchaser cannot be prosecuted for cheating or forgery merely because a property is later found to be linked to a disputed or forged Will.
Background of the case: buyer not criminally liable forged Will
The case, S. Anand vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., arose from a long-standing property dispute involving allegations that a Will dated September 12, 1988, had been forged to transfer land. Based on this Will, the property was subsequently sold to multiple buyers through registered sale deeds.
One such purchaser was later named as an accused and charged with offences including cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The buyer contended that he had purchased the property after due verification and had no involvement in the creation of the alleged forged Will.
High Court’s View
The Madras High Court declined to quash the proceedings, stating that the matter involved disputed facts that required trial and evidence examination.
Supreme Court Ruling
Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court Bench held that there was no material evidence to suggest that the buyer had any role in preparing the alleged forged Will or that he had knowledge of any fraud.
The Court emphasized that:
- Criminal liability for cheating requires proof of fraudulent intent.
- Mere purchase of property through valid sale deeds does not amount to a criminal offence.
- Without evidence of active involvement or deception, prosecution cannot be sustained.
Key Observations
The Court also noted that if the Will is ultimately found to be forged, the purchasers themselves would face consequences, as their ownership rights would become uncertain. This further weakens the argument for prosecuting them criminally.
Relying on its earlier judgment in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be used in the absence of clear intent to deceive.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the criminal proceedings against the buyer, observing that continuing the case would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
This judgment reinforces an important legal principle, that innocent purchasers acting in good faith should not be dragged into criminal litigation without clear evidence of wrongdoing.
