Attesting Witness Cannot Be Prosecuted for Cheating Without Specific Allegations of Fraud or Inducement: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Ram Lal and Another v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 18 May 2026
Citation: CRM-M-32179-2021
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an attesting witness to a transfer deed cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution for cheating or conspiracy in the absence of specific allegations showing dishonest inducement, active participation, or fraudulent intent. The Court quashed the FIR against petitioner No.1, observing that mere attestation of a document does not attract criminal liability under Section 420 IPC. However, proceedings against petitioner No.2 were allowed to continue as allegations regarding transfer of property in her favour required trial and appreciation of evidence.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR registered under Section 420 IPC in relation to an agreement to sell land measuring 3 Kanals 17 Marlas at Nabha. The complainant alleged that deceased accused Rajiv Kumar received approximately Rs.1.25 crore towards sale consideration but later failed to execute the sale deed and instead transferred the property in favour of his wife, petitioner No.2.
The petitioners argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature arising out of breach of agreement to sell. It was contended that petitioner No.1 was merely a witness to the transfer deed and had neither received any money nor made any inducement to the complainant. It was further argued that the essential ingredients of cheating, particularly dishonest intention from inception, were absent.
The State opposed the petition contending that the complainant had been induced to part with substantial amounts of money and that the allegations disclosed commission of offences under Section 420 IPC. It was argued that the veracity of allegations should be tested during trial.
After examining the law relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and other Supreme Court precedents governing quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that criminal prosecution cannot continue where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.
The Court observed that petitioner No.1 was neither a party to the agreement to sell nor the recipient of any alleged payment. His only role was that of an attesting witness to a subsequent transfer deed executed in favour of petitioner No.2. Relying upon precedents including Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar and M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. M.V. Venkata Sastri and Sons, the Court held that mere attestation of a document does not establish participation in cheating or conspiracy.
The Court further held that there was no material showing that petitioner No.1 had induced the complainant to part with money or possessed dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. Consequently, continuation of criminal proceedings against him would amount to abuse of process of law. However, insofar as petitioner No.2 was concerned, the Court found that allegations regarding transfer of property in her favour during subsistence of the agreement required appreciation of evidence and could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Decision: The High Court partly allowed the petition and quashed FIR No.0068 dated 16.07.2018 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala along with all consequential proceedings qua petitioner No.1 only. Proceedings against petitioner No.2 were directed to continue in accordance with law.