The Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a deed writer who was accused of colluding with others in the execution of a sale deed concerning land allegedly sold without valid ownership.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Soni Shrivastava held that merely acting as the deed writer in the transaction could not establish fraudulent intention. The Court found that the allegation of collusion against him was not supported by any tangible material.

The case arose from a sale deed executed by one of the co-accused in favour of another person. According to the informant, the seller did not have valid ownership over the land. It was alleged that the petitioner, who was the Katib or deed writer, along with the witnesses and identifier, had acted in collusion in preparing the registered sale deed through fraudulent means.

The petitioner argued that the allegations in the FIR were principally against the seller. According to him, his name appeared only because he had written the sale deed. He further submitted that the dispute arose from ancestral property and was essentially civil in nature. As a deed writer, he could not be attributed with the mens rea or motive necessary for the alleged offences. There was also no entrustment of property to him which could attract criminal breach of trust.

The informant opposed the plea and argued that there were allegations of collusion and conspiracy against the petitioner and that there was no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

The High Court, however, found nothing on record to substantiate the allegation that the deed writer was part of any fraudulent arrangement. It observed:

“This Court finds that the petitioner, being a sale deed writer (Katib), was merely doing his professional duty and the mens rea and intention required for indulging into any fraudulent activity, as such, does not surface as against the petitioner. The allegation of collusion is not substantiated by any tangible material and remains a bald and causal allegation. It is also clear that it was not the petitioner who indulged in any acts of altercation etc., rather it was the co-accused and his own family members who indulged in the same.”

The Court also noted that the co-accused had himself accepted that he had committed a mistake. It found no basis to attribute an intention to commit criminal breach of trust to the petitioner, who had proceeded on the bona fide belief that the land was jointly owned by the informant and the co-accused as ancestral property.

Finding that the alleged offences were not made out against the petitioner even on the face of the allegations, the Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and quashed the order taking cognizance insofar as it concerned him.

Case Title: Rajesh Ranjan v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48792 of 2022.

Appearance: Mr. Manendra Kumar Sinha for the Petitioner; Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP, for the State; Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh for Opposite Party No. 2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order