Attesting witnesses cannot be prosecuted for fraud solely because they signed the disputed deed.

Respondent No. 2’s complaint led to registration of an FIR alleging, among other offences, cheating.

The police later filed a charge sheet under Sections 420 and 114 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 4 and 5, sought to quash the charge sheet, contending that they had merely attested the gift deed and that the allegation of fraud was directed against accused No. 1.

The charge sheet also alleged that the documents came into existence at the instance of other accused.

The petitioners brought the gift deed to the Court’s attention, which showed them signing as attesting witnesses.

Whether the charge sheet alleging offences under Sections 420 and 114 read with Section 34 IPC should be quashed against the petitioners where the material showed that they signed the gift deed as attesting witnesses and the alleged fraud was attributed to accused No. 1.

The Court considered Sections 420 and 114 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

It relied on M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana and M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. M.V. Venkata Sastri and Sons, as cited in the judgment, for the principle that an attesting witness cannot be prosecuted merely for attesting a document where there is no other allegation implicating that witness in the alleged crime.

The Court examined the charge sheet and the gift deed.

It found that the deed identified the petitioners as attesting witnesses, while the specific allegation that fraud had been used to obtain the documents was directed against accused No. 1.

Although the State submitted that the petitioners knew of the transaction and that the documents were created at the instance of other accused, the Court concluded that the material did not provide a basis to prosecute the petitioners beyond their role as witnesses to the document.

Applying the cited principle, it held that their signatures as attesting witnesses alone could not sustain prosecution.

The proceedings against the other accused were not addressed by this order.