An attesting witness to a sale deed cannot be implicated in criminal proceedings unless further allegations link their actions to the alleged crime.

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. T. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Smt. Keerthana Swamy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.17942/2016 arising out of Crime No.277/2014 registered for offences punishable under Sections 419 , 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B, 199, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC .

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners after arguing the matter at length would seek leave of the Court to withdraw the petition insofar as it pertains to accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. Therefore, the petition remains only against petitioner No.4 - accused No.4.

4. The petitioner-accused No.4 stands as a witness to a particular document that has now become the subject matter of multiple proceedings; one the civil suit and the other the subject crime. The issue relates to a particular vendor by name Smt. Bhadramma, who died 35 years before the alleged transaction of the year 2005. Therefore, it is for accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 to answer the same. The petitions have been withdrawn and further trial would continue against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. Insofar as accused No.4 is concerned, a perusal at the Sale Deed as observed hereinabove, which has become the subject matter of those multiple proceedings would indicate that he is only an attesting witness. It is by now settled principle of law that, if one is an attesting witness, he cannot be drawn into the web of crime. In the light of the admitted fact that accused No.4 is an attesting witness, further proceedings if permitted to continue, would run foul of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of JIT VINAYAK AROLKAR V. STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 31 , wherein it has held as follows:

"8. We have carefully perused one of the sale deeds, which is the subject matter of the impugned FIR. The sale deeds are similar. The appellant signed the sale deed as the constituted attorney of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar and also in his capacity as a confirming party. The said power of attorney executed by Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar in favour of the appellant contains a recital that the executants, i.e., Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar, are the co-owners of the subject property. The legal effect of the sale deeds which are the subject matters of the impugned FIR is that theownership rights of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar were transferred to the purchasers.

9. It is pertinent to note that civil suits were filed by the 4^th respondent in October 2018. In the suits, he claims to be a co-owner or person with an undivided share in the subject property. Two years after the institution of the said suits, the constituted attorney of the 4^th respondent filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police on 23^rd October 2020. In the complaint, she stated that the subject property was originally owned by the predecessor of the 4^th respondent and Sadashiv Natekar. In paragraph 5 of the complaint, the constituted attorney of the 4^th respondent stated thus:

“5. This vicious and malafide exercise of deceit, forgery and land-grabbing has been systematically and high- handedly perpetrated by one Mr. Jit Vinayak Arolkar who claims to be the Power of Attorney holder of legal heirs of Sadashiv Sakharam Natekar. The said Sadashiv Natekar was the co-owner of the said property along with vaikunth Rawloo Khalap. Thus, it is clear that, the said property can in no way be arbitrarily sold without the express consent of all the legal heirs of both the Co-owners of the said