CRL.P/3897/2020 of SRI.H.K. MUPPANEGOWDA Vs STATE BY TIPTUR TOWN P.S on 6 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Prayer sought for in this petition by the accused Nos.4 and 5 that they are only witnesses to the gift deed. Hence, prayer sought for quashing of the charge sheet dated 25.04.2017 invoking the offence punishable under Sections 420, 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC and grant such other relief.

HC-KAR

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that based on the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1/Police, FIR in Crime No.169/2016 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 506, 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed. While filing the charge sheet not invoke the Sections 498A and 506 but only invoke Sections 420, 114 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and come to conclusion that accused No.1 took the document of gift deed by playing fraud and got the signature of the respondent No.2 to the mortgage deed and the allegation is that at the instance of the instigation of the accused Nos.2 to 4 the said document came into existence. But on perusal of charge sheet specific allegation is made against the accused No.1 that he played fraud to obtain the gift deed, apart from mortgage document.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that these petitioners are the witnesses to the said document. They don’t have knowledge about gift deed was obtained by Accused No.1 by playing fraud and merely because

HC-KAR

they are the attestors, they cannot be prosecuted. There was no instigation at the instance of the petitioners to sign the document and there was no dispute between the husband and wife and that too they were called for executing a document of mortgage deed.

5. Learned counsel in support of his argument relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.100659/2023 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.12 wherein this Court has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of M SRIKANTH VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER reported in 2019 (10) SCC 373 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.L. ABDUL JABBAR SAHIB VS. M.V. VENKATA SASTRI AND SONS AND OTHERS reported in 1969(1) SCC 573. Referring to these judgments both counsel submit that attesting witnesses cannot be hauled into the web of crime, if there is no other allegation except that they are attesting witnesses.

HC-KAR

6. Learned counsel also submits that these two petitioners being the witnesses cannot be prosecuted on any allegation of fraud only against accused No.1.

7. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent –State submits that no dispute with regard to these two petitioners have signed the document of gift deed and they were aware of the fact and also specific allegation is made that at the instance of the accused Nos.2 to 4, these documents come into existence and it is a matter of trial.

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.

9. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the document of gift deed and in the gift deed these two witnesses are signed as witnesses. The document was prepared by the document writer. Learned counsel also contended that any role of fraud is committed by the accused No.1 and not these petitioners. Considered the material placed on record. The petitioners are signed the document as attested witnesses

HC-KAR

and also allegation of cheating committed by the accused No.1 and invoke offences punishable under Section 114 against these petitioners when they have been shown as witnesses to the document, they cannot be prosecuted merely because they have signed the document as witnesses. The Judgments relied upon by the petitioners, which is referred by this Court of the Apex Court as well as judgment of High Court of Chattisghar, wherein also it is clear that attesting witnesses cannot be hauled into the web of crime, if there is no other allegation except that they are attesting witnesses and documents clearly discloses that both of them have signed as attesting witnesses and such being the case, petitioners are made out the case for quashing of the charge sheet.

10. In view of the discussion, I pass the following;

ORDER

(i) Petition is allowed.

(ii) The Charge sheet dated 25.04.2017 filed by the 1st respondent Police, i.e., Tiptur town police in FIR

No.169/2016 registered as C.C.No.992/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 114 r/w Section

HC-KAR

34 of the IPC, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, Tumkur District is quashed in respect of these petitioners only.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20