Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sampurnam V K vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1870
CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8465 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. V K SAMPURNAM
D/O LATE R.V.KUPPUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5, 1ST MAIN ROAD
JALADARSHINI BADAVANE,
BANGALORE - 560 054.
2. SMT KAVERI
D/O R PANDURANGA,
W/O D SATHISH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3, 1ST MAIN,
JALADARSHINI LAYOUT
Digitally GEDDALAHALLI,
signed by
NAGAVENI BANGALORE - 560 077.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 3. SMT NALINI K
W/O VITTALAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4, 1ST MAIN,
JALADARSHINI BADAVANE,
GEDDALAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 077.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1870
CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. SRI VITTAL MURTHY
S/O LATE V RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT NO.U3, MARUTHI EXTENSION,
15TH CROSS, PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BANGALORE NORTH,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
5. SRI. PANDU RANGA
S/O. LATE V RANGA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.49, 4TH MAIN
GANGA NAGAR, R.T. NAGAR
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE - 560 032.
DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 12.09.2023
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SANJAY NAGAR POLICE STATION,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUIDLING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE RAMANNA,
AND LATE NARAYANAMMA,
GRANDSON OF LATE SMT THIRUMALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.85, GEDDALAHALLI,
NANJUNDAPPA BUIDLING,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1870
CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023
HC-KAR
BANDECOLONY,
SANJAYA NAGAR,
BANGALORE CITY - 560 094
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1
MISS. KEERTHANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING THAT
THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.17942/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C
REGISTERED IN PURSUANCE TO COMPLAINT IN
CR.NO.277/2014 OF SANJAY NAGAR P.S., FOR THE ALLEGED
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 419, 420, 465,
468, 471, 120B, 199, 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU CITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
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 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR 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, -5- NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 OTHERS1, 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 the 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 31 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR ownership 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 4th 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 4th respondent filed a complaint with the rd Superintendent of Police on 23 October 2020. In the complaint, she stated that the subject property was originally owned by the predecessor of the 4th respondent and Sadashiv Natekar. In paragraph 5 of the complaint, the constituted attorney of the 4th 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 property."
(emphasis added) It is pertinent to note that the constituted attorney of the 4th respondent has omitted to mention in the complaint that two years before the filing of the complaint, declaratory suits were filed by the 4th respondent, which were pending. Interestingly, two years after the registration of the FIR, on 13th October 2022, the 4th respondent filed a supplementary complaint with the police alleging that even the said Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar had also committed an offence.
10. Thus, in short, the grievance of the 4th respondent is that the vendors under the sale deeds had only an undivided share in the subject property, and they could not have sold the entire subject property under the sale -7- NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR deeds. The contention of the appellant is that what is sold is the right, title and interest of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar. Thus, the dispute between the parties is predominantly a civil dispute.
11. Section 415, which defines cheating, reads thus:
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
12. It is pertinent to note that the purchasers under the sale deeds have not made any grievance about the sale deeds. In the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar2, in paragraphs 20 to 23, this Court held thus:
"20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused.
21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it -8- NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.
22. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code.
A clarification
23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint."
(emphasis added) 12.1 In this case, it is impossible to understand how the appellant deceived the 4th respondent and how the act of execution of sale deeds by the appellant caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the 4th respondent in body, mind, reputation or property. The appellant has not purported to execute the sale deeds on behalf of the 4th respondent. He has not purported to transfer the rights of the 4th respondent. There is no allegation that the appellant deceived the 4th respondent to transfer or deliver the subject property.
13. Taking the complaint as correct, the offence of cheating under Section 415 of IPC was not made out against the appellant. Moreover, the complaint was filed by the 4th respondent for the first time after a time gap of two years from the date of institution of the civil suits. In -9- NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR the complaint, he suppressed the fact that civil suits were already filed in which applications for temporary injunction were made. When there was a dispute over the title, the act of the 4th respondent of setting in motion criminal law two years after the date of filing of the suits amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of law.
14. Considering the above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 1st March 2023 is set aside, and FIR No. 177 of 2020 initially registered with Pernem Police Station, Pernem in the State of Goa, and now transferred to the Special Investigation Team of the Economic Offences Cell, and proceedings based thereon are hereby quashed and set aside only as against the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on the above terms. We clarify that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the pending civil dispute between the parties."
5. This Court in the case of RAJESH V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in Crl.P.No.100659/2023 dated 14.09.2023, has held as follows:
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The private complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent alleging forgery of a GPA and its benefit being taken by accused No. 1. The averment in the complaint is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 are friends and they are known to the complainant as well. While accused No. 1 gets all the benefits, accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been in active support of acts of accused No. 1. The benefit of the forgery is the sale deed. The sale deed is also appended to the petition. A perusal at the sale deed would indicate that the petitioner is an attesting witness to the sale
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR deed. Except this allegation of the petitioner acting as an attesting witness and a friend of accused No. 1, there is no other allegation against the petitioner that would touch upon any of the ingredients of the alleged offences.
8. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts and the allegations, it becomes necessary to notice what the police had to say in the product of investigation i.e., the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet, as obtaining in column No. 17, reads as follows:
"17. ೇ ನ ಸಂ ಪ ವರ (ಅವಶ ಕ ದ ಪ ತ ಕ ಾ° ಲಗ ) ಈ ೋ ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪತ ಾಲಂ ನಂಬರ:12 ರ ನಮೂದ $ಾ%ದ 01 &ೇ ಆ ೋ(ತನು *+ಾ,- ಮಂಜಪ/ ಕಂಬ0 ಈತನ ಅಕ1ನ ಗಂಡ3ದು4. ಸದ5 ಆ ೋ(ತನು 02 ಮತು 03 &ೇ ಆ ೋ(ತರನು6 78ಾ( $ಾ% ೊಂಡು *+ಾ,-9ೆ ಸಂಭಂ- ದ ಾ;ೇ<ೆನೂ6ರ 9ಾ ಮ ಹ>1ಯ ಸ@ೆ, ನಂಬರ: 287 ABಾC 1C/1 &ೇದರ Dೈ> 01 ಎಕರ 06 ಗುಂGೆ 08 ಆH Iೇತ ಮತು ಸ@ೇ, ನಂಬರ: 275/1+2+3+445464748gÀ ¥sÁèmï £ÀA§gÀ:14 PÉëÃvÀæ 34x24£Éà ಆ ಗಳನು6 ತನ6 ೆಸ59ೆ ಪKೆಯ ಉ ೆ4ೕಶ-ಂದ Mಾ.Bಾ.ನಂ:17 &ೇದ ವರ <ಾ ಂ>3ಂದ <ೇ ೆಂಬ ಉ ೆ4ೕಶ-ಂದ 20:12/02/2015 dod a-go Road: IN- Ko10806636655712N Se ಖ5ೕ- , -&ಾಂಕ:16/02/2015 ರಂದು ಇ-BಾPQಂR ದ ಾ;ೇ<ೆನೂ6ರ 9ಾ ಮ ಹ-ಯ ಸ@ೇ, ನಂಬರ:287 A&ಾ 18/1 &ೇದರ Dೈ> 01 ಎಕ ೆ 06 ಗುಂGೆ 08 ಆH Iೇತ ಮತು ಸ@ೇ, ನಂಬರ: 276/1+2+3+4+5+5+7+8: ¥sÁèmï £ÀA§gÀ::14 PÉëÃvÀæ 34x24£Éà ಆ ಗಳನು6 ಖ5ೕ- ಾಗೂ ಹBಾಂತರ $ಾಡಲು ಅS ಾರ ಪತ ವನು6 *+ಾ,- ಮಂಜಪ/ ಕಂಬಳ: ಇವರು 01 Bೇ ಆ ೋ(ತ59ೆ ಬ ೆಯ ೊರುTಾ ೆ ಎನು6ವಂTೆ &ೋವಲದ ಒಟುP W>+ಾರ ಪತ ವನು6 ಸೃYP ೊಂಡು, Tಾನು ಸೃYP ೊಂಡ ಒಟುP W>+ಾರ ಪತ ೆ1 &ೋಟ5ಯವ ಾದ ZÁ.¸Á.12&ೇದವರ ಮುಂ ೆಯೂ ಸಹ Wೕಸತನ-ಂದ &ೋಟ5 $ಾ% , ಾH<ೆನೂ6ರ ಶಹರ Z ೕಸ [ಾ;ೆ @ಾ (9ೆ ಒಳಪಡುವ ಾ;ೇ<ೆನೂ6ರ ಉಪ&ೋಂದ;ಾS ಾ5ಗಳ ಾ+ಾ,ಲಯದ -&ಾಂಕ:
20/05/2015 ರಂದು 01 &ೇ ಆ ೋ(ತನು 02 ಮತು 03 &ೇ ಆ ೋ(ತ ೊಂ-9ೆ ಾಜ ಾ\, ೋ ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪತ ಾಲಂ ನಂಬರ:11 ರ ಆ.ನಂ:02 ರ ನಮೂ- ದ ಒಟುP W>+ಾರ ಪತ ವನು6 *+ಾ,- ಮಂಜಪ/ ಕಂಬ0 ಇವ ೇ ಬ ೆ ೊಟP ಒಟುP W>ಯರ ಪತ ಅಂTಾ ಉಪ &ೊಂದ;ಾS ಾ5ಗಳ9ೆ ಸುಳ]^ ೇ0 ನಂ_ ೆ ಬರುವಂTೆ $ಾ%, Tಾ&ೇ
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR ಸೃYP ೊಂಡ &ೈಜವಲದ (BೊಟP) ಒಟುP W>+ಾದ ಪತ ವನು6 &ೈಜ ಒಟುPW>+ಾರ ಪತ ಅಂTಾ ಸರ ಾ5 ಅS ಾ5ಗ`ಾದ Mಾ.Bಾ.13 &ೇ ದವ ಾದ ಾHೕ<ೆನೂ6ರ ಉಪ&ೊಂದ;ಾS ಾ5ಗಳ9ೆ ಸ ಾ -ಯ ೆಸ5ನಲರುವ ಾ;ೇ<ೆನೂ6ರ 9ಾ ಮ ಹ-4ಯ ಸ@ೆ, ನಂಬರ: 287 ABಾC 14/1 &ೇದರ Dೈ> 01 ಎಕ ೆ 06 ಗುಂGೆ 08 ಆH Iೇತ , ಮತು ಸ@ೇ, ನಂಬರ: 276/1+2+3+4+5+ 6+ 748 gÀ ¥sÁèmï £ÀA§gÀ:14 PÉëÃvÀæ 34x24£Éà ಆ ಗಳನು6 ಆ ೋ( ನಂಬರ:01 &ೇ ದವನು ತನ6 ೆಸ59ೆ &ೊಂದH $ಾ% ೊಂಡು ಆ ಯನು6 ಪKೆಯಲು ಪ ಯ 6 ದ4ಲ ೇ, 01 &ೇ ಆ ೋ(ತನು ತನ6 ( ಾ-ಯ ಆ ಗಳನು6 vÀ£Àß ೆಸ59ೆ &ೋಂ ಾa ೊಳ]^ವ ಾ®PÉÌ 03 ಆ ೋ(ತರು ಸಹ
-01£Éà ಆ ೋ(ತ&ೊಂ-9ೆ ಾಜ5ದು4 ಒಟುP ಮು>+ಾb ಪತ ದ Bಾ ಾರರು ಅಂTಾ ಾಗೂ ಾ;ೇ<ೆನೂ6ರ ಉಪ &ೋಂದ;ಾS ಾ5ಗಳ ಮುಂ ೆ ಗುರು ಸುವವರು ಅಂTಾ ಮತು Bಾ ಾರರು ಅಂTಾ ಖ5ೕ- ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸À» $ಾ% 01 &ೇ ಆ ೋ(ತನು ಅಪ ಾಧ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÀPÀj¹zÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ "
PÀ®A 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 ¸ÀºÀ PÀ®A 34 L.¦.¹."
9. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would also indicate what is narrated hereinabove i.e., the fact that the petitioner being a friend and an attesting witness to the sale deed. It is therefore necessary to consider whether an attesting witness to a sale deed can be hauled up in the web of crime, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of any of the alleged fraud played by accused No. 1.
10. The issue whether an attesting witness can be dragged into the web of crime need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Ape Court in the case of M. Srikanth Vs. State of Telangana and another reported in MANU/SC/1446/2019: 2019:INSC:
1172: 2019(10) SCC 373, wherein it is held as follows:
"18. Let us consider the case of the complainant on its face value without going into the truthfulness or otherwise thereof. It is the case of the complainant that
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR the property originally belonged to her grandmother. After her death, it devolved upon her father, Afzaluddin Hassan and after his death on 28.05.1996, it devolved upon accused No. 1 and his three sisters, namely, Karima Siddiqua, Saleha Asmatunnisa and Sadika Khairunnisa. Their father had entered into a development agreement with M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.. however, the same was cancelled during his lifetime. After the death of their father on 28.05.1996, accused No. 3 tried to trespass into the property for which, on the basis of her complaint a crime was registered. That the said M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. had executed some document alleging assignment of its rights in favour of M/s NRI Housing Company Pvt. Ltd. of which accused No. 3, Abid Rasool Khan was the Managing Director. In respect of the same action, Crime No. 177/1996 had been registered at the instance of the complainant. With respect to the said transaction, two original suits were already filed, one by the complainant and another by her sisters.
19. It is further the case of the complainant, that accused No. 1 created a will in Urdu purported to be executed by her grandmother bequeathing the property in favour of her parents, namely, Afzaluddin Hassan and Liaquathunnisa Begum for their lifetime and vesting the remainder to accused No. 1. The said will is created on a non judicial stamp paper of Nizamat Jung and has been allegedly executed on 02.04.1950. According to the complainant, accused No. 1, her brother, had created another forged and fabricated document styled as deed
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR of confirmation (Hiba Bil Musha) dated 08.03.1990 confirming the oral gift to accused No. 1 and also recording handing over of physical possession. It is her case, that on the basis of these fabricated documents, accused No. 1, posing himself to be an absolute owner of the property, executed a lease deed in favour of accused No. 4 (the appellant herein in one of the appeals) on 01.12.2008. It is further the case of the complainant, that thereafter accused No. 4 executed a sublease in favour of accused No. 5 HPCL represented by accused Nos. 6 and 9 within a period of two months i.e. on 30.01.2009 and that accused Nos. 7 and 8 are the attesting witnesses. That is all the case of the complainant.
20. The complaint filed by respondent No. 2 runs into 26 pages and 26 paragraphs. As already discussed hereinabove, it reveals a disputed property claim based on inheritance between the complainant, her sisters and her brother, accused No. 1. A perusal of the complaint would further reveal, that the complainant also disputes with regard to the area of the property including the manner of its devolution upon the parents of the complainant and her competing interest with that of her siblings. There is not even a whisper in the complaint that the present appellant, i.e., accused No. 4 was fully aware that accused No. 1 was not the sole beneficiary by inheritance and that the property had devolved upon the complainant and her sisters. Also there is nothing to show that knowing this he has collusively entered into the lease agreement with accused No. 1, by creating a
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR false and fabricated will. Though, there is a mention with regard to conspiracy, but there is not even a suggestion with regard to manner of such conspiracy."
11. The said judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.Srikanth (Supra) is also followed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Nishanth Agarwal and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Superintendent of Police Batouli and another reported in MANU/CG/0088/2021 wherein the Court has held as follows:
"14. Thereafter, finally the Collector directed to lodge FIR by holding as under:-
15. On the basis of the aforesaid order/direction passed by the Collector, Sarguja, the above-stated offences have been registered against the petitioners and they are being prosecuted for the offences as noticed herein-
above. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have attested the two sale deeds as witnesses and as such, the aforesaid offences have rightly been registered against them along with the sellers and the purchaser of the subject sale deeds.
16. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which defines the word "attested", which states as under:--
""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,
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary;"
17. A careful reading of the aforesaid definition of the word "attested" would show that the essential conditions of a valid attestation under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act are: (i) two or more witnesses have seen the executant sign the instrument of have received from him a personal acknowledgement of his signature; (ii) with a view to attest or to bear witness to this fact each of them has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant.
18. It is essential that the witness should have put his signature animo attestandi, that is, for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal acknowledgement of his signature.
19. The Supreme Court in the matter of M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. M.V. Venkata Sastri & Sons while considering the definition of the word "attested" as provided under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act has held that to attest is to bear witness to a fact and if a
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR person puts his signature on the document for some other purpose, e.g. to certify that he is a scribe or an identifier or a registering officer, he is not an attesting witness.
20. In the matter of Banga Chandra (supra), the Privy Council has held that attestation by itself would neither create estoppel nor imply consent. It proves no more than that the signature of an executing party has been attached to a document in the presence of a witness.
21. Similarly, in the matter of Pandurang Krishnaji (supra), it has been held by the Privy Council that attestation of a deed by itself stops a man from denying nothing whatsoever expecting that he has witnessed the execution of the deed. It conveys, neither directly nor by implication, any knowledge of the contents of the document and it ought not to be put forward alone for the purpose of establishing that a man consented to the transaction which the document effects.
22. The Lahore High Court in the matter of L. Suraj Bhan v. Hafiz Abdul Khaliq has held that recitals in a deed do not bind the attesting witnesses, for, an attestation pure and simple is not enough to fix, the attestator with a knowledge of the contents of the deed.
23. Likewise, in the matter of Surjeet Singh v. State of U.P. the Allahabad High Court has held that recitals in a deed do not bind the attesting witnesses and thereafter quashed the proceedings against the attesting witnesses.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR Similar is the decision rendered by that High Court in the matter of Suraya Bali v. State of U.P.
24. In the matter of M. Srikanth v. State of A.P. the Telangana High Court quashed the prosecution of the petitioners therein (A-7 and A-8) who were attestors of the lease deed relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib (supra) by holding as under:--
"8. So far as A.7 & A.8 concerned they are mere attestors of the lease deeds or sub lease deeds of the year 2008 & 2009 executed by A.1 in favour of A.4 and in turn by A.4 in favour of A.5. It is their contention of they have no knowledge of the contents and they have no knowledge of the transactions of source of title of A.1 and claim with reference to will dated 02.04.1950 and deed of confirmation dated 08.03.1990. The law is fairly settled at least from the 3 Judge expression of the Apex Court in M.L. Abdul Jabhar Sahib (supra) that attestation no way fixing attesting witness with knowledge of contents of the document or implying consent for contents of of documents, unless it is established by any independent evidence that to the signature was attached the express condition that it was intended to convey something more than mere witnessing to the execution or attestation. The attestation mainly to mean executing, signing or affixing in the presence of 2 or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant signing and vice versa and not necessarily more than one of such witness shall present and no particular form of attestation is
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR necessary. From the private complaint averments so far as A.7 and A.8 concerned, there is nothing specifically mentioned of their active role either in committing any offence of cheating or forgery or forgery for purpose of cheating or using as genuine a forged document or the like. Having regard to the above, even on the face value of complaint averments, there is no any offence made out against A.7 & A.8 therefrom of mere attestation in view of the settled position of law, for nothing to presume any knowledge of them to the contents of the documents leave apart from no duty caste upon them to verify genuineness of source of title of executant of the document for their attesting.
a). Thus, the proceedings of crime No. 311 of 2010 in so far as A.7 & A.8 are liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed by allowing the Crl.P. No. 6047 of 2013.
b). Though it is the contention of A.9 that he is also placed in same position from attestation of the sub lease dated 30.01.2009, it requires further discussion in considering any further role of A.9., so also of A.6 being the employees of the entity-A.5, for the sub lease is in favour of A.5 executed by A.4 the lessee from A.1."
25. The decision rendered by the Telangana High Court in the matter of M. Srikanth (supra) was taken to the Supreme Court by accused No.4 against whom the proceeding was not quashed. The Supreme Court took up the matter of M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana and quashed the proceeding against accused No. 4 also and upheld the orderquashing the proceeding against the
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR attesting witnesses in paragraphs 27 and 28, which state as under:--
"27. Insofar as the criminal appeals arising out of the special leave petitions filed by the original complainant is concerned, we absolutely find no merit in the appeals. The learned single Judge has rightly found that there was no material to proceed against accused No. 5-HPCL and its officers accused Nos. 6 and 9 as also accused Nos. 7 and 8, who have been roped in, only because they were the attesting witnesses. The learned single Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
28. Insofar as original accused No. 4 is concerned, we have no hesitation to hold, that his case is covered by categories (1) and (3) carved out by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). As already discussed hereinabove, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on its face value, there is no material to proceed further against accused No. 4. We are of the considered view, that continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No. 4, M. Srikanth, would amount to nothing else but an abuse of process of law. As such, his appeal deserves to be allowed.".
12. The High Court of Chhattisgarh has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.Srikanth (supra) and an earlier judgment in the case of M.L.Abdul Jabbar Sahib Vs. M.V. Venkata Sastri & Sons and others reported in MANU/SC/0019/1969: 1969(1) SCC 573. The Apex Court and the High Court of Chhattisgarh have
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR elucidated the fact that an attesting witness cannot be hauled into the web of crime, if there is no other allegation except that he is an attesting witness. In the case at hand as well, a perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet (supra), would indicate no other allegation except the fact that the petitioner was a friend of accused No. 1 and an attesting witness to the sale deed. The sale deed is alleged to be the subject of fraud. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner would merit acceptance and outweigh the submissions made by the learned HCGP for the State.
13. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No. 804/2022 before the concerned Court stands quashed qua the petitioner.
iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against the other accused pending before the concerned Court.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1870 CRL.P No. 8465 of 2023 HC-KAR
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition stands disposed as withdrawn insofar as it relates to petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and they are at liberty to avail of such remedy as is available in law.
(ii) Criminal Petition is allowed insofar as it relates to petitioner No.4 - accused No.4.
(iii) Proceedings in C.C.No.17942/2016 pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stands quashed only against petitioner No.4 - accused No.4.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT:SG