At the stage of discharge, the court only determines if a prima facie case exists. An attesting witness can be prosecuted if there are specific allegations of active connivance and facilitation of fraud, as mere attestation does not shield a party from criminal liability if they acted as a mediator in a fraud.

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for discharge was declined, and also for quashing of the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the revision petition preferred against the aforesaid order dated 18.01.2023 was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that FIR No.112 dated 09.07.2016 was registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana on the basis of a complaint made by respondent No.2-complainant Suman Sabharwal. The complainant alleged that she had purchased a plot measuring 170 square yards vide sale deed bearing Vasika No.787 dated 11.04.2011 from accused Pritpal Kaur and paid the sale consideration to Pritpal Kaur, Avtar Singh, Inderdeep Singh and Sandeep Singh. It was further alleged that the present petitioner Surinder Kumar Dhir projected himself to be a property dealer and assured the complainant that the transaction was genuine and also stood as an attesting witness to the said sale deed executed in the year 2011. The complainant further alleged that in November, 2015, when she attempted to raise construction over the plot, one Banta Singh obstructed her and claimed that she was not the owner of the property, whereafter she came to know that accused Pritpal Kaur, her husband and sons had cheated her. It was further alleged that mutation in her favour had also been cancelled and that one Surjit Singh, by impersonating himself as Anil Kumar Syal, had sold the plot to accused Pritpal Kaur, who thereafter sold the same to the complainant. After registration of the FIR, the challan was presented against the present petitioner as well as the other co-accused. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition seeking quashing of the FIR. However, the said petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the pleas available to him at the stage of framing of charges. While disposing of the said petition vide order dated 27.07.2022, a Coordinate Bench of this Court clarified that the concerned trial Court shall grant appropriate opportunity to the accused to raise the said pleas. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge primarily on the ground that the only allegation against him was that he had appended his signatures as an attesting witness on the sale deed dated 11.04.2011, and that no person was impersonated in his presence nor had he wrongly identified any person before the authorities concerned and, therefore, no offence was made out against him. Notice of the said application was issued to the State, which contested the same. Upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application vide the impugned order dated 18.01.2023. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner/revisionist preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. However, after hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 08.09.2023. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court, the present pet