LI Network
Published on: January 10, 2024 at 13:00 IST
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that a person cannot be implicated in a criminal case merely for authenticating a mutation based on sale deeds acquired through fraud by another accused individual.
This ruling was made in response to a petition filed by individuals accused in an FIR lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471, along with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, on a Single Bench, highlighted, “The mere involvement of the petitioners in attesting the mutation, grounded on deceitful sale deeds orchestrated by other accused, cannot serve as a valid reason, especially without concrete evidence of conspiracy, to subject them to trial. There’s insufficient proof to continue the trial against the petitioners.”
The Court clarified that there was no substantial evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged conspiracy.
Case Background:
The petitioners were facing criminal charges before a Judicial Magistrate First Class and sought to quash these proceedings at the High Court.
The complaint alleged that two individuals, in collusion with witnesses and a scribe, created fraudulent sale deeds in 2007. Subsequently, they secured mutations and attestations in their favor for the property belonging to the complainant’s deceased father.
The complainant contended that his father never executed these sale deeds, alleging fraudulent signatures and an impersonation. Upon his father’s demise, during an attempt to attain mutation in his name, the complainant discovered the illicit transfer of his father’s property to the accused.
Examining the facts, the High Court observed that mutations were sanctioned based on registered sale deeds bearing photographs impersonating the vendor. Comparing the photographs with a person attending the Court indicated a semblance between the individual and the vendor in the sale deeds. Additionally, a local watchman identified the vendor, creating an impression of their presence.
The Court opined that although more careful scrutiny might have been advisable, the petitioners’ actions did not demonstrate involvement in a criminal conspiracy. It noted that individuals might approach verification differently—some might prefer further verification, while others may rely on presented material.
Consequently, the Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain proceedings against the petitioners, indicating their apparent innocence based on the available record.
Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioners.
