Witness Attesting Allegedly Fraudulent Document Not Criminally Liable Without Specific Allegations: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that mere attestation of an allegedly fraudulent document, without any specific allegation attributing an active role to the attesting witnesses in the alleged offence, cannot by itself make them criminally liable. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 195]
The Court accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings against two accused who had been implicated solely on the ground that they had attested a disputed Gift Deed.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela observed:
“As could be seen, the Courts have consistently held that the attesters cannot be held liable for merely attesting the documents.
After hearing both the parties, this Court accepting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that neither in the F.I.R nor in the charge sheet, which is filed after a complete investigation, except bald allegations that the petitioners stood as attesters to the document No.2820/2012, dated 23.04.2012, nothing else is stated and the allegations are omnibus and does not constitute any offence.”
“As per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9.”
The case arose out of allegations concerning a disputed Gift Deed. The de facto complainant alleged that the Gift Deed had been fraudulently created, giving rise to allegations of criminal conspiracy, forgery, use of a forged document as genuine, cheating and criminal trespass under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420 and 447 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
According to the charge sheet, the Gift Deed was allegedly prepared by another accused by changing his name, while the petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos. 8 and 9, were alleged only to have attested the document. Apart from that, no specific role was attributed to them in the commission of the alleged offences.
Aggrieved by their implication in the case, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the trial court. They submitted that, except for the allegation of attestation, neither the complaint nor the charge sheet contained any specific allegation against them.
The State and the de facto complainant opposed the petition, contending that the truth of the allegations and the involvement of the petitioners were matters to be determined during trial.
The High Court, however, noted that the settled position of law is that attestation, by itself, does not establish knowledge of the contents of a document or participation in the transaction recorded therein.
The Court further noted that an attesting witness cannot be held criminally liable merely for signing a document as a witness, in the absence of material showing a specific role in the alleged offence.
Finding the allegations against the petitioners to be bald and omnibus, the High Court held that, even if taken at face value, they did not disclose any offence or make out a prima facie case against them.
Applying the settled principles governing its inherent jurisdiction, the High Court found no prima facie case against Accused Nos. 8 and 9 and quashed the proceedings against them.
Case Title: Tadiboyina Narendra Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 9878 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 195
Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused: Siva Rama Krishna Kolluru
Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants: Srinivasa Rao Narra, Public Prosecutor (AP)