An attesting witness lacks the necessary intent or involvement in a fraudulent scheme, thus, mere attestation does not warrant criminal liability under sections 420, 120-B, and 506 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 for quashing of FIR No.430 dated 16.10.2017 under Sections 420 , 120-B and 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand as detailed in the FIR is that the impugned FIR was registered based on the complaint made by Darshan Singh, son of Jangir Singh, resident of House No.862, Mohalla Ramdass Pura, Jagraon, District Ludhiana, a retired Army personnel. He alleged that accused persons namely Ranjit Singh and Manmohan Singh (petitioner herein), who are property dealers, approached him with a proposal to purchase a one kanal property situated at village Leelan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The said accused claimed that the property was under an agreement to sell in favour of one Sarabjit Kaur (co-accused). Believing this, the complainant was introduced to said Sarabjit Kaur by the said property dealers. All the accused persons, acting in connivance and conspiracy, induced the complainant to purchase the said property. Consequently, on 18.11.2013, an agreement to sell was executed in favour of the wife of the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.13,16,500/- out of which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as earnest money in the presence of accused Ranjit Singh and Manmohan Singh (petitioner herein), who signed as witnesses. The accused persons assured the complainant that the original ownership documents and the previous agreement to sell in favour of Sarabjit Kaur would be provided before the registration of the sale deed which was slated for 25.06.2014. On 10.04.2014, the complainant further paid Rs.75,000/- to the accused persons, which was duly acknowledged at the back of the agreement to sell and the sale-deed date was extended to 24.12.2014. Thereafter, despite repeated requests, the accused persons failed to produce any original ownership documents or the alleged previous agreement to sell. Upon being pressed for the same, the accused persons finally confessed that no such ownership or agreement existed and they had fraudulently deceived the complainant into parting with his money. Thereafter, the complainant was threatened with dire consequences. The complainant alleged that the accused persons, by hatching a criminal conspiracy committed cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation with dishonest intention of obtaining wrongful gain for themselves and causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Based on these set of allegations, the impugned FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence except for having signed the agreement to sell merely as an attesting witness. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is neither a beneficiary of the transaction in question nor did he play any role in its execution. According to learned counsel, the signatures of the petitioner had been obtained only to attest the document and he had no knowledge of any alleged deceit, misrepresentation or fraudulent intention attributed to the main accused. Furthermore, the entire dispute is civil in nature arising out of a property transaction with regard to agreement to sell and has been wrongly given a criminal colour. The FIR itself discloses no ingredients of any criminal offence against the petitioner. Learned counsel has pointed out that while considering the plea filed by the co-accused Sarabjit Kaur, the