CRM-M No.17282 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.17282 of 2009(O&M) Decided on :09.12.2009 Vinod Kumar & another ... Petitioners versus State of Punjab & another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. I.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashing the order dated 19.12.2006 passed by CJM, Hoshiarpur whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners under Section 420 IPC in FIR No.46 dated 12.02.2006 and order dated 09.05.2009 whereby the revision petition has been dismissed. The allegations in the FIR briefly mentioned are that the co-accused of the petitioners fraudulently and dishonestly sold the property belonging to the complainant. Thereafter the said vendee retransferred the property back to yet another CRM-M No.17282 of 2009(O&M) -2- co—accused alleging that it was done to deprive the complainant from his property. The petitioner No.1 is son-in-law of the Meena Sharma, one of the main accused person and husband of HarshBala, another one of them. The role attributed to him is that he has attested the first sale deed. As regards petitioner No.2, role attributed to him is that he is a neighbour and he has attested the second sale deed as a witness. As regards petitioner No.1, I find no illegality in the impugned orders and consequently dismiss the revision petition against him. However, as regards petitioner No.2, I find favour with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by merely attesting the identity, volition and capacity of the executants, he has not rendered himself liable to be labelled as conspirator. No benefit has been shown given to him. It must be kept in mind that the witness of a contract/document merely attests the identity of the executants, their capacity and their volition as well as to the fact that the executant and other witnesses have put their signatures in the presence of the witnesses. No other material has been shown against the petitioner No.2. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that from the chronology of the events, the petitioner No.2 has also to be involved into the conspiracy. In my opinion, this is a bald allegation and neither before the Courts below nor before this Court no material has been shown against the petitioner No.2. In my opinion, the mere CRM-M No.17282 of 2009(O&M) -3- fact that he is a neighbour and he has attested the second sale deed, in the absence of any material would not be sufficient to hold that he was guilty of conspiracy. Consequently, this petition is accepted qua the petitioner No.2 and the impugned order are set aside in this regard. December 09, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE