JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and the complainant as also the Public Prosecutor. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner who is an attesting witness in the agreement to sell between the parties and submits that the petitioner attested the document as a witness regarding identity of the seller which is not in dispute. The agreement to sell the land was made by the original owner of the land in the year 1982. He submits that for non-execution of the document, notice for specific performance of the agreement was given by the complainant, who was the purchaser as per the agreement and the notice was given simply to the executor of the document, viz. the owner of the property and as such, he submits, that the witness of the document is not bound to get execution of the document completed. If at all any dispute exists then the same is between the owner of the property and the proposed purchaser (complainant) who have entered into the agreement. He further submits that since the owner of the property was Bheemsen and the agreement was between Bheemsen and the complainant, as such if at all any obligation was there to execute the document then the same was on the owner of the property. 3. Counsel for the complainant submits that the property was under land acquisition which was under proposal of de-acquisition and even thereafter the registry was not made and as such attesting witness Lal Chand is also liable for the transactions. 4. I have perused the impugned order and the document in question. 5. The document in question reveals that the agreement was in between Bheemsen and the complainant. If at all there was any obligation for execution of the document then that was on the owner of the property and the attesting witness (petitioner herein) cannot be said to be a person who is responsible for execution of the document; hence, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner, who is an attesting witness in the agreement, cannot be sustained. There is no allegation that the petitioner, being a witness identified any of the parties to the agreement, wrongly. There is no allegation that the petitioner, being a witness identified any of the parties to the agreement, wrongly. Un-disputedly, in a sale document, the obligation of a witness is to the extent of identifying the person for whom the witness is signing the document unless the document otherwise stipulates. In the present case, the status of the petitioner is only to the extent of an identifying witness and no fault has been alleged in that regard. 6. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. The stay petition stands disposed of. 7. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.Petition allowed. *******