( 1 ) SECOND respondent entered into an agreement to purchase the property of Mallela Ramesh Robert, son of John for Rs. 2,40,000/- on 3-7-2004 and got that agreement of sale registered on the same day i. e. , 3-7-2004. The vendor Mallela ramesh Robert unilaterally executed a deed of cancellation dated 14-7-2004, cancelling the agreement of sale dated 3-7-2004 executed by him in favour of the second respondent and presented it for registration. Petitioner kept the registration of the said deed of cancellation pending for some time and registered it as document No. 828 of2005 on 21-2-2005. Alleging that petitioner had fraudulently registered the deed of cancellation of the agreement in his favour, second respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner under section 81 of the Registration Act, 1908 ( the Act ). Learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent, took the complaint on file as C. C. No. 34 of 2005. This petition is filed to quash the said C. C.

( 2 ) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since petitioner while discharging his duties as Sub-Registrar only had registered the deed of cancellation, the learned magistrate was in error in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner though no sanction to prosecute him was obtained by the 2nd respondent under section 197 Cr. P. C. and in any event, since petitioner, as Sub-Registrar has no option but to register a document present to him if it complies with all the requirements of the Stamp Act and Registration Act, no mala fides can be attributed to him. It is also his contention that since the second respondent did not make Mallela ramesh Robert, his vendor an accused, question of petitioner committing an offence under Section 81 of the Act by registering the deed of cancellation does not arise.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that second respondent, who got registered the agreement of sale by paying a stamp duty of Rs. 27,555/- is cheated by the petitioner registering the deed of cancellation unilaterally executed by the vendor, by paying a meagre stamp duty of Rs. 100/- and contends that since second respondent is not a party to the deed of cancellation petitioner ought not to have registered the same, and so it is clear that petitioner did not act honestly and hence is covered by Section 81 of the Act because his act of registering the deed of cancellation caused injury to the second respondent and contends that since sanction to prosecute can be obtained at any time the learned magistrate taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner cannot be said be erroneous. He placed strong reliance on k. Kalimuthu v. State, (2005) 4 SCC 512. It is his contention that petitioner without registering the deed of cancellation ought to have directed the executant thereof to approach the civil Court or ought to have served a notice on the second respondent before registering the deed of cancellation and so there are no grounds to quash the complaint.

( 4 ) PETITIONER is working as a Sub- registrar. His appointment is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Registration Subordinate service Rules (herein after referred as service Rules ) issued in G. O. Ms. No. 372, revenue (U), dated 24-2-1983, as per which there are two grades of Sub-Registrars, i. e. , Sub-Registrar, Grade-I who will be in category-1 and Sub-Registrar, Grade-II who will be in Category 2. As per Rule 2 of the Service Rules, appointment of Sub- registrar, Grade-I is by promotion from the category of the Sub-Registrars, Grade-II and for Sub-Registrar Grade-II is by direct recruitment or by Recruitment by transfer and as per Rule 4 of the Service rules, the appointing authority for the categories of Sub-Registrars, Grade-I and grade-II, is the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. Since it is well known that appointing authority has the power to remove also, Deputy Inspector general

Click Here to Read the rest of this document