HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1681 of 2016

07^th August, 2025 Pawan Pal -Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another -Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

None is present for respondent no. 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant to set-aside the impugned charge-sheet dated 18.07.015, summoning order dated 02.11.2015 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2035 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that:-

Respondent no. 2, who was the Senior Bank Manager of Syndicate Bank, Branch Civil Lines, Roorkee, lodged a complaint against the applicant that a land was purchased by Rishi Pal Singh, S/o from one Abhinav Kumar by a registered sale deed on 02.07.2008. In the said sale deed, the applicant was one of the witnesses. It has further been alleged in the said complaint that on the basis of the said sale deed, Rishi Pal took a loan from the bank in the year 2008 itself by mortgaging the sale deed, in which applicant is a guarantor. It has been alleged in the complaint that Rishi Pal Singh paid the instalments of the loan till the year 2015, but, when he stopped to pay the instalments, then, bank inquired into the matter and it was revealed that some other person alleged himself to be the actual buyer and in possession of the said land, which was mortgaged and further that the sale deed executed by Sri Rishi Pal Singh did not contain the photograph of Abhinav Kumar, but, some other person. On the complaint, FIR was lodged on 30.04.2015. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC, in which only the applicant has been made the accused.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was only the attesting witness to the sale deed and was neither the beneficiary of any alleged plot, nor he was the person, who has purchased the property. He has further submitted that neither purchaser of the property Rishi Pal Singh has been made an accused nor the Investigating Officer has named the person, who was alleged to be the actual buyer and chargesheet against the applicant has been filed only on the basis of the statement given by Abhinav Kumar; that he has not sold the property to Rishi Pal and he has sold it to some other person, but, neither the person alleged to be vendee of the said sale deed have been identified, nor the date of the alleged sale deed have been mentioned.

4. A perusal of the sale deed would indicate that the applicant is the only attesting witness to the sale deed. Besides this, no other sale deed has been produced, as has been alleged in the inquiry conducted by the Investigating Officer. Abhinav Kumar has not filed any suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of Rishi Pal and the sale deed is still valid.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 3 of the Transfers of Property, 1882, which defines the word ‘attested’. It states as hereunder:-

“16.................................................................................................. "attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executants a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument