The Jharkhand High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a purchaser under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that no offence is made out where the purchaser is not alleged to have deceived the informant or induced delivery of property. The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal liability for forgery or cheating cannot extend to a third-party purchaser unless there is specific allegation of dishonest inducement or impersonation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ankit Kumar, purchased land from Shaukat Ansari, who allegedly claimed ownership based on a false genealogy representing himself as the sole legal representative of Late Asruddin Ansari. The informant filed a complaint case on 15.04.2026 before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, followed by an FIR (Karra P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026) registered on 05.05.2026 for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 351(2), 351(3), 61(2), and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The petitioner sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding under Section 528 of the B.N.S., 2023.
Key Facts
- The petitioner purchased land from Shaukat Ansari, who allegedly falsely claimed ownership based on a fabricated genealogy
- The informant filed a complaint case (Case No. 24 of 2026) on 15.04.2026 before the FIR was lodged
- The FIR (Karra P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026) was registered on 05.05.2026 for multiple offences under the B.N.S., 2023
- The investigation was ongoing, and no charge-sheet had been submitted at the time of filing the petition
- The petitioner argued that the complaint case was suppressed in the FIR, constituting abuse of process
Procedural History
- 15.04.2026: Complaint Case No. 24 of 2026 filed before the S.D.J.M., Khunti
- 05.05.2026: FIR (Karra P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026) registered for offences under B.N.S., 2023
- 2026: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Cr.M.P. No. 1844 of 2026) filed before the Jharkhand High Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S., 2023
- 25.06.2026: Judgment delivered by the Jharkhand High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR (Karra P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026), on the grounds that:
- No offence was made out against the petitioner under the B.N.S., 2023
- The complaint case filed prior to the FIR was suppressed, constituting abuse of process
- The petitioner was a third-party purchaser with no allegation of cheating or deception against the informant
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a third-party purchaser of property, who is not alleged to have deceived the informant or induced delivery of property, can be held criminally liable for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 351(2), and 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, merely because the vendor allegedly sold the property based on a false claim of ownership.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Relied on Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another ((2009) 8 SCC 751), arguing that execution of a sale deed by a person claiming property not belonging to him does not constitute forgery unless the purchaser is deceived
- Cited Dr. Satish Chandra & Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2025:JHHC:13928) and Sudha Devi & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2026:JHHC:371), which relied on Krishna Lal Chawla & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another ((2021) 5 SCC 435), to argue that suppression of material facts amounts to abuse of process
- Highlighted that a similar case (Abhijeet Sharma & Another v. The State of Jharkhand, 2026:JHHC:16808) was quashed by the same court
- Contended that no allegation of cheating, deception, or criminal intimidation was made against the petitioner
For the Respondent
- Opposed the quashing of the FIR, arguing that if the allegations were considered true in their entirety, the offences under the B.N.S., 2023 were made out against the petitioner
- Submitted that the petition should be dismissed at the nascent stage
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 351(2), and 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023 and held that:
-
No Forgery Without Impersonation: The Court relied on Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another, holding that execution of a sale deed by a person claiming property not belonging to him does not constitute forgery unless there is allegation of impersonation or deception. Since the vendor (Shaukat Ansari) claimed ownership without impersonating anyone, no forgery was committed under Section 335 of the B.N.S., 2023 (corresponding to Section 464 of the IPC).
"When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery."
-
No Cheating Without Dishonest Inducement: The Court held that Section 316(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 (corresponding to Section 420 of the IPC) require dishonest inducement of the informant to deliver property or alter a valuable security. Since the informant was not the purchaser and no allegation of cheating was made against the petitioner, these provisions were not attracted.
"To constitute an offence under Section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security."
-
No Criminal Intimidation Against Petitioner: The Court noted that allegations under Sections 351(2) and 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023 (relating to criminal intimidation) were not made against the petitioner.
-
Abuse of Process: The Court observed that the informant had suppressed the fact that a complaint case (Case No. 24 of 2026) was filed prior to the FIR, which amounted to abuse of process. Reliance was placed on Krishna Lal Chawla & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, which held that suppression of material facts is dealt with by a heavy hand.
The Verdict
The Jharkhand High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Cr.M.P. No. 1844 of 2026) and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR (Karra P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026), pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti. The Court held that even if the allegations in the FIR were considered true in their entirety, none of the offences under the B.N.S., 2023 were made out against the petitioner.
What This Means For Similar Cases
No Criminal Liability for Third-Party Purchasers Without Deception
- Practitioners must note that criminal liability for forgery or cheating under the B.N.S., 2023 cannot extend to a third-party purchaser unless there is a specific allegation that the purchaser deceived the informant or induced delivery of property
- The judgment reinforces that execution of a sale deed by a person claiming property not belonging to him does not constitute forgery unless there is impersonation or deception involved
Suppression of Material Facts Amounts to Abuse of Process
- Courts will deal with a heavy hand cases where litigants suppress material facts, such as prior complaint cases or investigations
- Practitioners should ensure full and true disclosure of facts to avoid adverse inferences or dismissal of petitions
Limited Scope of Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023
- Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 (corresponding to Section 420 of the IPC) require dishonest inducement of the victim to deliver property or alter a valuable security
- These provisions do not apply to third parties who are not alleged to have deceived or cheated the informant
