In Brief
Asha Rani purchased a property that had belonged to a deceased person whose legal heirs alleged fraudulent transfer and lodged a criminal complaint. Initially, Asha Rani was not named as an accused because she was found to be a bona fide purchaser. However, a decade later, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed arraying her as an accused. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order refusing to quash the supplementary charge-sheet, holding that since the sole surviving legal heir had reached a compromise with Asha Rani acknowledging proper property devolution and had no grievance, the delayed charge-sheet should not be sustained."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.