The Karnataka High Court, in a recent judgment, has emphasized that an attesting witness to a sale deed cannot be embroiled in a cheating case if the only allegation against him is his role as an attesting witness. This pivotal ruling was delivered by Justice M Nagaprasanna, who allowed the petition of Rajesh Totaganti and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under various sections, including 420 (cheating) and 465 (forgery).
The case stemmed from an incident where several individuals, including Rajesh, were implicated in a cheating case involving a sale deed. The primary allegation was that Hanumanthappa had defrauded a person using a fabricated sale deed, and Rajesh, along with another individual named Halesh, had affixed their signatures as attesting witnesses to this deed.
Justice Nagaprasanna, in his judgment, pointed out,
“In the case at hand as well, a perusal of the complaint or the summary of the chargesheet would indicate no other allegations except the fact that the petitioner was a friend of accused no. 1 and an attesting witness to the sale deed. The sale deed is alleged to be the subject of fraud. Therefore, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner would merit acceptance and outweigh the submissions made by the high court government pleader for the state.”
The judge further referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in M Srikanth Vs. State of Telangana, which had already clarified this position. This stance was subsequently followed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The backdrop of the case reveals that one Manjappa had lodged a private complaint on October 7, 2015, against three individuals—Hanumanthappa, Rajesh, and Halesh—for forgery and cheating. Manjappa alleged that Hanumanthappa had deceived him using a fabricated sale deed, and the other two had aided him by signing as attesting witnesses.
The police filed a chargesheet based on these allegations, and on September 20, 2022, a court took cognizance of the matter. Rajesh, in his defense, argued that he was neither a beneficiary of the alleged fraud nor had he purchased any property based on the contentious general power of attorney (GPA). He emphasized that he was merely an attesting witness and that all allegations were primarily against the first accused, with no direct charges against him.
This judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between the primary perpetrators of a crime and those who might be tangentially associated, ensuring that justice is both fair and precise.
