Mere Attesting Witness to Sale Deed Cannot Be Prosecuted for Cheating, Forgery or Conspiracy Without Evidence of Active Participation, Benefit or Knowledge of Forged Title Document; Lack of Due Diligence Alone Does Not Establish Conspiracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Taranjit Singh Chawla v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 13.10.2026

Citation: CRM-M-56881-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere attestation of a sale deed does not attract criminal liability for cheating, forgery or conspiracy in the absence of material indicating the attesting witness’s active involvement, benefit from the transaction or knowledge of the forged nature of the underlying title document. The Court further held that even a lack of due diligence, by itself, cannot establish criminal conspiracy unless the surrounding facts and circumstances indicate otherwise. An attesting witness ordinarily bears testimony only to the execution of the document and cannot be presumed to have knowledge of defects in the vendor’s title.

Summary: The petitioner, a property dealer, was implicated in an FIR registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 511 and 120-B IPC for having attested a sale deed dated 23.01.2023, allegedly executed on the basis of a forged title document dated 11.11.1994. The prosecution contended that, being a property dealer residing nearby, the petitioner ought to have verified the ownership and authenticity of the earlier document, particularly when the mutation had been entered after approximately 26 years.

The Court observed that the sale deed attested by the petitioner was not itself forged, although the vendor’s title was founded upon an allegedly forged document available in the Tehsil records. There was no evidence suggesting that the petitioner knew or could reasonably have discovered that the earlier document was forged. Relying upon judicial precedents concerning the limited role of attesting witnesses, the Court held that failure to exercise due diligence could not, in the absence of other incriminating circumstances, establish participation in a conspiracy to cheat or defraud.

Decision: The petition under Section 528 BNSS was allowed. The High Court quashed FIR No.155 dated 23.12.2023, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 01.05.2024, the order dated 17.07.2025 rejecting the petitioner’s discharge application, and all consequential proceedings, qua the petitioner alone.