An attesting witness cannot be implicated in a crime unless there are other allegations against them.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No.804/2022. The petitioner is the accused No.2 in the said proceedings.

2. Heard the learned counsel Smt. Pooja Savadatti appearing for petitioner and the learned HCGP Shri V.S. Kalasurmath appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:

The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The 2nd respondent seeks to register a private complaint on 07.10.2015 against three accused. The petitioner is accused No.2. The learned Magistrate refers the private complaint for its investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which then becomes a crime in Crime No.168/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Police after investigation file a charge sheet against the petitioner. Filing of the charge sheet and the concerned Court taking cognizance of the offences is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel Smt. Pooja Savadatti appearing for the petitioner taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition would seek to demonstrate that all the allegations of the complainant is against accused No.1 as the complainant and accused No.1 are relatives. The petitioner-accused No.2 is neither the beneficiary of any alleged fraud nor is a person who has purchased the property on the strength of the alleged GPA. She would submit that the petitioner is only an attesting witness. All the allegations are against accused No.1 and nothing against accused No.2. Therefore, she would seek quashment of the entire proceedings against the petitioner – accused No.2.

5. Learned HCGP would refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to contend that the Police after investigation have filed charge sheet. Since the Police have filed a charge sheet, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial, that would be conducted pursuant to the charge sheet so filed by the Police. He would seek dismissal of the entire petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The private complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent alleging forgery of a GPA and its benefit being taken by accused No.1. The averment in the complaint is that accused Nos.1 to 3 are friends and they are known to the complainant as well. While accused No.1 gets all the benefits, accused Nos.2 and 3 have been in active support of acts of accused No.1. The benefit of the forgery is the sale deed. The sale deed is also appended to the petition. A perusal at the sale deed would indicate that the petitioner is an attesting witness to the sale deed. Except this allegation of the petitioner acting as an attesting witness and a friend of accused No.1, there is no other allegation against the petitioner that would touch upon any of the ingredients of the alleged offences.

8. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts and the allegations, it becomes necessary to notice what the police had to say in the product of investigation i.e., the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet, as obtaining in column No.17, reads as follows:

9. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would also indicate what is narrated hereinabove i.e., the fact that the petitioner being a friend and an attesting witness to the sale deed. It is therefore necessary to consider whether an attesting witness to a sale deed can be hauled up in the web of crime, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of any of the alleged fraud played by accused No.1.

10. The issue whether an attesting witness can be dragged into the web of crime need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Ape Court in the case of M. Srikanth Vs. State of Telangana and another reported in 2019(10) SCC 373, w