Attesting Witness Cannot Be Held Criminally Liable for Fraudulent Land Transactions Executed by the Vendor

The petitioner, a 72-year-old widow, sought the quashing of a cognizance order dated 24.08.2018 in Complaint Case No. 2164(C) of 2018.

The complainant alleged that the accused persons conspired to execute sale deeds for Gairmajarua land (government land) on 30.03.2016 and 02.04.2016 through forged documents, embezzling Rs. 46,40,000/-.

The petitioner was not a vendor but an attesting witness to the sale deed.

While the informant alleged she received a draft of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the petitioner maintained she never encashed any money and merely identified the parties.

1. Whether an attesting witness to a sale deed can be held criminally liable for cheating and embezzlement solely for identifying the parties to the transaction.

2. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner constitute an abuse of the process of law given her limited role as a witness.

The legal duty of an attesting witness/identifier is limited to identifying the parties and ensuring they are not fictitious.

Inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of any court (Criminal Miscellaneous application for quashing).

Distinction between the 'main culprits' (vendors/beneficiaries) and a mere 'attesting witness'.

The court examined the petitioner's specific role in the alleged conspiracy and found that she was not the vendor of the disputed land.

The primary responsibility of an attesting witness is the identification of parties to ensure they are not fake; they do not bear responsibility for the title of the land or the underlying financial transaction beyond that identification.

Although the informant claimed a draft was issued to her, the court noted it was never encashed and she was not a primary party to the transaction.

As a 72-year-old lady and mere attesting witness, her continued prosecution was unjustified while the main accused were already being prosecuted.

The court allowed the application and quashed the cognizance order dated 24.08.2018 against the petitioner only, while directing that the prosecution of the other accused persons must continue expeditiously.