Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Bona Fide Purchaser in Alleged Forged Will Case

April 28, 2026 : The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a purchaser accused in a property dispute involving an allegedly forged Will, holding that there was no material to show his involvement in the alleged conspiracy or knowledge of forgery. However, proceedings against the remaining accused will continue.

The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Madras High Court. The appellant had sought quashing of a criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Karur.

A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the complainant, and neither the FIR nor the High Court’s order disclosed any tangible material indicating that the appellant participated in the preparation of the forged Will or had knowledge of forged signatures at the time of executing the sale deed dated 18 December 1998.

Factual Background:
The complainant alleged that his father, Ayyasamy Nadar, had died in 1988 after executing a partition deed allotting property to him. It was claimed that a Will later surfaced during revenue proceedings, which the complainant disputed on the ground that his father had been in a comatose state prior to death and could not have executed it.

Further allegations stated that certain accused persons, including the complainant’s brother, fabricated the Will and sold the property through registered sale deeds to third parties, including the appellant. A criminal case was registered under Sections 465, 468, 420, and 120-B of the IPC.

The High Court had refused to quash the proceedings, holding that the matter involved disputed questions of fact.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning:
The Court noted that the appellant had purchased the property through a registered sale deed for valid consideration and that there was no evidence linking him to the alleged fabrication of the Will. It also pointed out that the earlier agreement to sell did not involve the appellant.

The Bench expressed doubt about the evidentiary value of the forensic report relied upon by the prosecution, observing that the comparison of signatures had been conducted using a xerox copy of the disputed Will.

Importantly, the Court held that the appellant, as a bona fide purchaser, could not be said to have induced the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly to part with property, thereby ruling out the applicability of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

The Court further observed that if the Will were ultimately found to be forged, the purchasers themselves would be the aggrieved parties, as their title would be jeopardized.

Relying on Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another (2009), the Court reiterated that third parties who are not directly affected may not be competent to initiate such criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and proceedings against the appellant were quashed, while clarifying that the case would continue against the other accused.

Case: S. Anand v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026 INSC 418)