Sale Deed Execution by Power of Attorney Holder Not Forgery: Jharkhand HC

Third parties to a property transaction lack the locus standi to allege cheating or forgery against a Power of Attorney holder who executes a sale deed, even if the vendor's title is disputed. The Jharkhand High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against agents, ruling that the mere execution of a deed by one person for another does not constitute 'making a false document' under criminal law.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary presided over the matter, evaluating the criminal liability of petitioners who acted as Power of Attorney holders for a vendor whose lineage and ownership were contested. The court examined whether the act of executing a registered document on behalf of another could attract charges of cheating and forgery when the purchaser had no grievances.

Defining Forgery and Cheating in Property Transactions

The Court clarified that for an offence of cheating to be established under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be a victim who was actually deceived. In property sales, this is typically the purchaser. Since the complainant in this case was a third party claiming ownership, and the actual purchaser remained satisfied with the transaction, the charge of cheating could not be sustained. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., the complainant cannot make any complaint of being cheated against the petitioners."

Execution of Sale Deed Does Not Equate to False Document

Addressing the allegations of forgery under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the bench noted that the primary ingredient creation of a 'false document' was missing. Even if a seller purports to convey property that does not belong to them, the document itself is not 'false' if the person executing it is indeed the person they claim to be. The Court found that the petitioners merely acted as agents and were not involved in the alleged fabrication of identity documents used by the principal vendor.

The Court has the following directions:

"Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 28.10.2023 passed by the learned I/C Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed."

Key Takeaways

Locus Standi of Third Parties

Only the defrauded purchaser has the right to file a criminal complaint for cheating in a property sale; third-party claimants must seek civil remedies.

Nature of False Documents

Executing a deed for a property one does not own does not constitute forgery unless the document itself is fabricated or the identity of the executant is falsified.

Protection for Power of Attorney Holders

Agents acting under a Power of Attorney are not criminally liable for the principal's lack of title unless there is specific evidence of their involvement in creating forged identification documents.

Ratio

An act of selling a property which one does not own, by executing a sale deed, does not amount to 'making a false document' as defined under the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, such an act does not constitute forgery. Furthermore, a third party who is not a party to the sale transaction cannot maintain a complaint of cheating against the vendor or their agents.

Background:

The dispute originated from a complaint filed by Raj Kishor Ram, who alleged that Ganpait Mahto (the co-accused) had sold land belonging to the informant's family to one Anil Ram. It was alleged that Ganpait Mahto fabricated his Aadhar and PAN cards to falsely establish his lineage as the grandson of the recorded tenant. The petitioners, acting as Ganpait Mahto’s Power of Attorney holders, executed the sale deed in favor of the purchaser.

The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the cognizance order, arguing that the dispute was essentially civil in nature evidenced by a pending title suit and that as agents, they had not committed any act of deception. The Court relied heavily on the precedent in Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. and Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. ( "(2022) 7 SCC 124": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 812) to conclude that criminal prosecution for forgery cannot be used as a shortcut to resolve title disputes.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1311 of 2023
NeutralCitation: 2026:JHHC:21704
Case Title: Prabhat Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P. (for State); Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate (for O.P. No.2)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(JHKD) 28