An attestor of a document cannot be held criminally liable for the actions of the principal parties unless sufficient evidence demonstrates complicity.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused in C.C.No.15 of 2017 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, for alleged offences under Sections 206 , 207, 208, 420 read with 34 of IPC. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.6 for having attested his signature as a witness to a deed of mortgage between the 1^st accused and the 2^nd accused.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unaware of the purport of the deed of mortgage executed between the accused Nos.1 and 2 and at request of accused No.2, who belongs to the same village, acted as a witness to the said transaction. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent has filed a private complaint before the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, which was taken on file as C.C.No.295 of 2016 by the learned Magistrate for the alleged offences.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even as seen from the complaint, except for a vague statement that the accused Nos.6 and 7 are attestors of the mortgage deed and that they were close acquaintances of accused Nos.1 and 2 at the deed of mortgage is a sham transaction, purportedly executed without any consideration. It is also submitted all the accused have cleverly created the sale deed and mortgage deed only to avoid the execution of decree passed in O.S.No.13 of 2016 filed for recovery of money and it was decreed for an amount of Rs.6,45,000/- with interest.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the attestor of a document could not have been arrayed as accused, and placed reliance on Mohammad Ibrahim vs. State of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar in Crl.A.No.1695 of 2009 , whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the 2^nd accused, and acts of accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 by signing as witness, scribe and stamp vendor of the sale deeds cannot be held responsible for offence of cheating.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submits that the 2^nd respondent has ample evidence to prove the connivance between the accused. It is also submitted that the issue would have to be dealt by the trial Court when the matter is taken up for trial. It is further submitted that evidence would be adduced before the trial Court, and the nexus between the accused and their acquaintance would be established by the 2^nd respondent during the course of trial and prays for dismissing the petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the

2^nd respondent. Perused the record.

7. As seen from the disputed deed of mortgage dated 27.01.2016, the transaction amount of Rs.20,13,000/- is said to be exchanged between the parties to the deed through the savings bank account of the executants vide a cheque. The 2^nd respondent has not placed any document or record to disbelieve this transaction. As seen from the recitals of the complaint, it is not even alleged that the transaction alleged is a sham transaction and that the cheque was never deposited or the cheque was returned or dishonoured, no effort in that regard is made by the 2^nd respondent before filing the complaint against the petitioner. That apart, the private complaint filed by the petitioner does not disclose the list of witness in Annexure-I, as such the petitioner would not have the liberty to summon any witness of his choice, when the matter is taken up for trial. That apart, fastening the liability under Sections 206 , 207, 208, 420 read with 34 of IPC cannot be attributed to the petitioner for his role as a witness to the deed of mort