ORDER This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 44 of 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol, West Godavari district, which was taken on file against the petitioner/A-16, along with other, for the offence punishable under Section 423 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief allegations leveled against the accused, including the petitioner/A-16 herein, are as under : The de facto complainant purchased 700 sq. yards of site vide registered sale deed, dated 21-3-2009 from A-1 being the General Power of Attorney Holder of A-2 and A-3. In the said sale deed, a specific recital is incorporated as follows: "if, at the time of measurement of the site in future, there are lesser extents and greater extents in the total extent of the site, you have to bear the loss if the extent is less, or in case the extent is more, you are entitled to enjoy the same with full rights of alienation or enjoy the same yourselves". It seems that on ground, the total extent of site was 1015 sq. yards i.e., excess of 315 sq. yards over and above 700 sq. yards. On coming to know about the same, A-1 executed Rectification Deed, dated 26-12-2009 without the knowledge of the complainant. The allegation is that A-4 demanded the complainant to give him 315 sq. yards of site, which is excessive. The further allegation is that one un-registered Will Deed, dated 14-11-1998 was fabricated as if B. Sarojini Devi (mother of A-1, A-2, A-14 and A-15) executed the Will bequeathing 315 sq. yards of site in favour of A-2, for which A-14 and A-15 acted as attestors. Thereafter, A-2 executed another General Power of Attorney, dated 27-2-2010 to an extent of 315 sq. yards stating that he succeeded the property through the Will, dated 14-11-1998 in favour of A-1, for which A-16 (the petitioner herein) and A-17 acted as attestors and identifying witnesses. When A-4 tried to interfere with the possession of the complainant, in collusion with A-9 to A-12, the complainant resisted the same. Originally, the complainant lodged a report with the Police which came to be registered as a case in Cr. No. 112 of 2010. After completion of investigation, police referred the case as 'mistake of fact'. When A-4 tried to interfere with the possession of the complainant, in collusion with A-9 to A-12, the complainant resisted the same. Originally, the complainant lodged a report with the Police which came to be registered as a case in Cr. No. 112 of 2010. After completion of investigation, police referred the case as 'mistake of fact'. Thereafter, another complaint was filed and the same came to be registered as Cr. No. 22 of 2011, which was also referred as civil in nature. Challenging the same, the de facto complainant filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate examined' two witnesses and took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC against A-1, A-2, A-4, A-11, and A-13 to A-15; for the offence punishable under Section 423 IPC against A-1 to A-4 and A-16/petitioner herein and A-17; for the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC against A-4 and A-9 to A-17, and for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC against A-5 to A-8. 3. Insofar as the petitioner/A-16 is concerned, the case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 423 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 423 says that whoever dishonestly or fraudulently executes any instrument with regard to change of any property and which contains false statement relating to the consideration for such transfer or change is punishable under Section 423 IPC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings against A-17, who is a co-attestor of the documents, were quashed by this Court in Yelakala Rangn Rao v. State of A.P. (1) 2013 (2) ALT (Crl.) 46 (A.P.) and the petitioner stand on the same footing as that of A-17. The said fact is not disputed or denied by the learned counsel appearing for 2nd Respondent. 5. In Yelakala Rangn Rao v. State of A.P. (1 supra) this Court elaborately dealt with the issue in question and held that insofar as A-10 to A-12 and A-17 are concerned, they simply attested the documents said to have been executed between the parties, and attesting the documents by itself would not cause any wrongful loss to the de facto complainant. 6. 6. Following the learned principles of law laid down therein, and in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner/A-16 stands on the same footing as that of A-17, who was an other attestor to the same document, this criminal petition is liable to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in case No. 44 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol, West Godavari District, are hereby quashed insofar as the Petitioner/A-16 is concerned. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitioners, if any, pending shall stand closed accordingly. 8. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent seeks a direction to the Court below for an early disposal of the case against the remaining accused. As the C.C., is of the year 2012, the Judicial First Class Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if necessary by splitting up the matter against the non-attending accused.