Narayan Rao Sindhya vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana

In this petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against him in C.C. No. 646/09 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jordan.) & JMFC, Ramanagara. The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No. 6 in the said case.

On the basis of the complaint lodged by one B. Jayakumar, resident of Maruthi Layout, Sriramapura, Bangalore on 22.6.2009, Magadi Police registered case in Crime No. 185/09 for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 418, 447, 468 and 420 r/w 149 IPC against one Sundara Bai and others in respect of a sale deed dated 8.6.2006 purported to have been executed by Smt. Savithri Bai, Gopala Rao Shinde in favor of one Jagannatharao. It is the allegation of the complainant that the property which was the subject matter of the said sale deed bearing Survey No. 60 of Vaddarahalli Village of Magadi Taluk measuring 1 acre 29 guntas was owned by his grand mother Savithri Bai and he being the only heir of Savithri Bai, succeeded to the said property and his grand mother Savithri Bai died 50 years ago and one Sundara Bai along with one Keshava Rao and Gopala Rao purported to have executed sale deed in respect of the said property and Smt. Sundara Bai by impersonating herself as Savithri Bai though as on the date of the sale deed Savithri Bai was not alive, got the sale deed registered and thereby the persons named therein have committed the aforesaid offences. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has filed the charge sheet against 7 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 418, 419, 465, 468 and 420 r/w 149 of IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences alleged and ordered issue of summons. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No. 6 has presented this petition.

The principle contention urged in this petition is that the petitioner was only a mere attestor of the sale deed dated 8.5.2006 and he was not even present before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registering the sale deed and therefore he cannot be charged with any offence. According to him, the materials available on record do not make out prima facie case against him for the prosecution launched and the allegations are vexatious and liable to be quashed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

At this stage, there is no dispute that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Police Inspector and he has attested the sale deed dated 8.5.2006. It is the specific allegation made by the complainant and also several witnesses whose statements have been recorded during investigation that Smt. Savithri Bai who was the owner of the subject matter of the sale deed died about 50 years prior to the date of the sale deed. The photographs found on the sale deed which has been taken at the time of registration of the sale deed prima facie indicates that accused No. 1 Sundara Bai was one of the executants and she has represented herself as Savithri Bai. In the sale deed Savithri Bai is shown as one of the executant. There is prima facie evidence to indicate that Savithri Bai was no more as on 8.5.2006. The petitioner herein also hails from same locality. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that he knew Savithri Bai. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he being merely an attestor not expected to know the contents of the document and therefore on the ground that he has attested the document, he cannot be prosecuted for attesting the document. He drew my attention to the definition of "attested" occurring in Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Reading of definition of ''attested'' as per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, clearly indicates that attestor in relation to an instrument is always meant that each of the attesting witnesses has seen the executant signed or affixed his/her mark to the instrument. In the case on hand, prima facie the petitioner herein who was one of the assessors deemed to have seen the executant putting her signature/mark on the sale deed. Therefore, at this stage, in my opinion, there are sufficient materials, to proceed against this petitioner as such I find no substance in any of the contentions urged in the petition. In this view of the matter, I find no ground to entertain the petition. Therefore, the petition is rejected. The observations herein are made only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and it shall not, in any way, influence the trial Court while disposing of the matter on merits.