Point of Law : It is only when criminal proceedings for offence under Section 177 of IPC is initiated that the requirement under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. would come into play. [Para 19]

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:-

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or writ of appropriate directions to quash the FIR registered by the 1st respondent in Crime No.233/2018 vide Annexure-C, dated 17.12.2018, and pass such other suitable orders as deemed fit to meet the end of justice.

i(a). Issue a writ of appropriate nature to quash the C.C.No.8941/2019 as per Annexure-E pending on the file of the 8th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the ends of the justice.

ii. Pass any other appropriate order or orders as deemed by the Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed a complaint on 17.12.2018 at respondent No.1-Sanjay Nagar Police Station alleging that petitioner No.1 and the husband of respondent No.2 were the owners of the land in Sy.No.26/5 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas which was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority, an extent of 14 guntas have been left out for the land owners i.e., petitioner No.1, husband of petitioner No.2, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 who are brother and sister of petitioner No.1.

3. In a portion of the left out property, a temple was built which was managed and run by petitioner No.1 and husband of respondent No.2. The husband of respondent No.2/L.N.Ashwathama had expired on 30.10.2010.

4. It is alleged that the petitioner No.1 has executed a gift deed in favour of petitioner No.2 on 04.05.2018, as regards a portion of the above property. Another gift deed was executed on the same date in favour of petitioner No.2 and the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as regards another portion of the above property. Within a period of 20 days thereafter, an absolute sale deed was executed by the Trust represented by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and their son in favour of petitioner No.2 on 31.03.2018.

5. It is alleged that the gift deeds were registered by the Sub-Registrar on the basis of forged and fabricated khatha certificate as also forged and fabricated tax-paid certificate, wherein the name of the husband of respondent No.2 which was mentioned earlier, has been deleted as if to contend that petitioner No.1 is the sole owner of the property.

6. It is on that basis that the said complaint in Crime No.233/2018 came to be registered by the respondent No.1/Sanjay Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 419, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners are before this court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

7. Sri. D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that:

7.1. The offences, if any, are under Section 177 of IPC, wherein the petitioners are alleged to have submitted false information for the purpose of registration of a gift deed and a sale deed. The false information, if any, having been submitted to the Sub-Registrar who had registered the gift deed and the sale deed, it is for the said Sub-Registrar to initiate criminal proceedings in view of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which prohibits any Court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC.

7.2. There has been no inducement which has been made by the petitioners insofar as the complainants are concerned, even an offence under Section 468 of IPC would require commission of forgery for the purpose of cheating, which would again require an act on part of the petitioners viz-a-viz the complainants by way of inducements etc., which has not occurred and as such, no offence under Sections 419, 420, 468 of IPC has been committed by the petitioners.

7.3. Insofar as the offence under Section 471 of IPC, he submits that this offence could have been only committed insofar as the Sub-Registrar is concerned since the alleged fabricated document has been used in the office of the Sub-Registrar and not as regards the complainants and in this regard he submits that no offence has been made out