Specific allegations that attesting witnesses acted as middlemen and induced the transaction preclude quashing under Section 482.

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4, sought quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 33923/2018 for offences under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC

The complainant alleged that the petitioners acted as middlemen between him and the property owners, encouraged the sale transaction, and assured him that the deceased khatha holder’s property records would be transferred to the legal heirs. The complainant paid an advance of ₹1,00,000 towards the agreed sale consideration of ₹23,00,000; the petitioners also signed the sale document as witnesses

Following a reference under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the police investigated and filed a charge-sheet alleging that the petitioners had acted as middlemen

The petitioners argued that they were merely attesting witnesses and that the dispute was civil in nature; the complainant and the State relied on the allegations of their active involvement in the transaction

Whether the proceedings against the petitioners could be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC when they were not only attesting witnesses but were also alleged to have acted as middlemen and assured the complainant regarding the transaction

Whether the disputed question of the petitioners’ role in the transaction could be determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC

Section 482 of the CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, but disputed factual questions concerning an accused’s alleged role are not ordinarily determined in a quashing proceeding where the complaint and charge-sheet contain specific allegations requiring adjudication at trial

The Court considered the petitioners’ reliance on M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana and M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. M.V. Venkata Sastri and Sons, concerning the position of persons who are merely attesting witnesses, but distinguished that line of reasoning where the accused are alleged to have had an additional, active role

It also distinguished Crl.P. No. 6428/2023 on its facts

The complaint specifically alleged that the petitioners acted as conduits between the complainant and the property owners, assured the complainant about the transaction and the transfer of the khatha, and were involved when the advance was paid. The charge-sheet likewise alleged that they acted as middlemen

Their signatures as witnesses were undisputed, but the allegations went beyond the role of attesting witnesses. Whether those allegations were true—and whether the petitioners had acted as alleged—required factual adjudication at trial and could not be resolved under Section 482 of the CrPC

Both criminal petitions were dismissed