The prosecution should not be quashed at the initial stage if there are allegations in the complaint satisfying the main ingredients of the alleged offence along with supporting materials.

Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J.

1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) preferred by Kedar Singh and six others, accused in Complaint Case no. 1688 of 1997 corresponding to Trial Case no. 805 of 1997, pending in the court of a Judicial Magistrate, first class at Gopalganj, for quashing of the impugned order dated 4.7.1997 recorded in that case by which the learned Magistrate had ordered for issuance of process against the petitioners having found prima-facie evidence against the accused/petitioners for having committed offence under sections 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts in brief are that one Yogendra Singh filed the aforesaid complaint (Annexure-1) against the petitioners first stating therein the family tree. As per allegations Pukaro Kuer had inherited the property of her father, Rajnandan Singh, whereas accused nos. 1 to 5 were Kedar Singh, his son and sons of Paras Nath Singh, another Gotia. It was alleged that Pukaro Kuer was illiterate and used to be ill therefore she wanted to sell her property at which accused/petitioners no. 1 to 5 agreed to purchase her three bighas land for a consideration of rupees fifty thousands and they brought Pukaro Kuer to the Registry Office on 3.9.1996. They got a document prepared and asked Pukaro Kuer to put her left thumb impression on the same assuring her that the money would be paid before the Registrar. They filed the document in the court of Registrar but after some time they informed Pukaro Kuer that since the money could not be brought from the Bank, they would come other day for getting the registration done. Further allegation is that thereafter Pukaro Kuer asked them to get the document registered by paying money but they avoided to do so and thereafter rumour floated that the document had already been registered. From Registry office the complainant came to know that the accused had purchased document for Bakshishnama over which the other two accused/petitioners signed as witnesses and without knowledge of Pukaro Kuer, on 14.11.1996 they got another lady presented before Sub-Registrar, Gopalganj, and also got the document registered. Further allegation is that thereafter Pukaro Kuer had sold the lands to the sons of the complainant and another pattidar, Kailash.

3. The argument of the learned counsel was, firstly, that the offence apparently was committed punishable under section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 for which, under section 83 of the Registration Act, the prosecution could have been commenced only by, or with permission of the Registrar General, the Registrar or Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, the offence had been committed. Learned cousnel submitted that even the learned lower court had noted this point in the impugned order wherein the learned lower court observed that no material was brought on the record as to whether or not the complainant or the person offended had intimated the competent authority about the offence, punishable under section 82 of the Registration Act. However, the learned lower court also found the case to be prima facie established under sections 465 and 120B of the Penal Code, hence summoned the accused persons to face the trial.

4. The second argument of the learned counsel was that from the complaint as well from the evidence brought on the record in course of enquiry no nexus of the petitioners with the alleged offence could be established, hence on that ground also this application was fit to be allowed. In other words, the argument of the learned counsel was that complaint petition and the materials on record did not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners.

5. In so far as first argument of the learned counsel is concerned, section 83 of the Registration Act runs as follows :

"83. Registering Officer may commence prosecutions. (1) A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowled