No Criminal Charges Against Buyer for Property Purchased on Forged Will: Supreme Court

Case Title

S. Anand v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 418

Introduction

The Supreme Court clarified the law on the criminal liability of purchasers in transactions involving a forged will. It held that a bona fide purchaser who buys property for valid consideration, without knowledge of fraud, cannot face criminal prosecution merely because the seller’s title later proves defective. The Court drew a clear distinction between civil disputes over title and criminal liability based on dishonest conduct. It emphasized that criminal law cannot apply in the absence of mens rea .

Also Read:
Section 480(3) BNSS: Bail Conditions Not Applicable to Offences Below 7 Years – Supreme Court Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/section-4803-bnss-bail-conditions-supreme-court/

Factual Background

The dispute arose from a family property in Tamil Nadu. The complainant alleged that his father had executed a partition deed under which the property was to devolve upon legal heirs. However, during subsequent proceedings, a will dated shortly before the father’s death surfaced.

The complainant challenged the authenticity of this will, asserting that his father was in a comatose condition prior to his death and could not have executed such a document. It was alleged that one of the family members, in conspiracy with others, fabricated the will and used it to transfer the property through registered sale deeds in 1998.

Several purchasers, including the appellant, acquired the property for consideration. A criminal case was later registered alleging offences of forgery, cheating, and conspiracy. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against multiple accused, including the purchasers.

The appellant approached the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, claiming that he was a bona fide purchaser with no role in the alleged fraud. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that disputed questions of fact required trial. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Also Read:
Who is an Accomplice in Criminal Law? – Supreme Court Explanation https://legalpaathcoaching.com/who-is-an-accomplice-in-criminal-law-supreme-court-explanation/

Supreme Court Held

• The appellant purchased the property through registered sale deeds for valid consideration, and there was no dispute regarding the genuineness of the transaction itself.
• The record did not contain any material indicating that the appellant had participated in or had knowledge of the alleged fabrication of the will.
• The forensic report relied upon by the prosecution was based on comparison with a photocopy of the will, which significantly reduced its evidentiary value and reliability.
• A purchaser cannot be held liable for cheating under Section 420 IPC unless there is clear evidence of fraudulent inducement or dishonest intention attributable to him.
• In the present case, the appellant neither induced the complainant nor caused him to part with property, and therefore the essential ingredients of cheating were absent.
• There was no privity of contract between the appellant and the complainant, and no material suggesting conspiracy or knowledge of forgery.
• Even if the will is ultimately proved to be forged, the purchasers would themselves be the aggrieved parties since their title would become doubtful.
• Criminal prosecution cannot be used to settle what is essentially a civil dispute relating to title and validity of documents.
• Continuing criminal proceedings against the appellant would amount to abuse of the process of law.
• Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant while permitting the case to continue against other accused.

Case Laws Discussed

• Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751
  The Court held that a third party cannot allege cheating against a purchaser when no deception is practiced upon them. If any fraud exists, the purchaser himself may be the victim, not the offender.

Test Yourself — MCQ

Question 1
Can a purchaser be prosecuted merely because the property was sold based on a forged will?
A. Yes, always
B. Yes, if FIR is registered
C. No, unless knowledge or involvement in fraud is proved
D. Yes, if title is disputed

Correct Answer: C

Question 2
Which essential element of cheating was missing in this case?
A. Agreement
B. Delivery of property
C. Fraudulent inducement by purchaser
D. Registration of deed

Correct Answer: C

Question 3
Who is considered the aggrieved party when property is sold based on a forged document?
A. State
B. Any third party
C. Purchaser
D. Registrar

Correct Answer: C

ADV. Rajveer Singh

Co-Founder and Legal Expert at Legal Paath Coaching | Website |  + postsBio ⮌

• ADV. Rajveer Singh

  Death Penalty: Trial Courts Must Call Mitigation & Aggravation Reports , Supreme Court
• ADV. Rajveer Singh

  Appellate Court Can Reverse or Modify Conviction Even Without Accused’s Appeal: Supreme Court
• ADV. Rajveer Singh

  Order II CPC
• ADV. Rajveer Singh

  Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC