1. - These three Criminal Misc. Petitions have been filed for quashing FIR No. 211/2011 under investigation at the Police Station, Ratangarh District Churu and hence all these petitions have been disposed of by this common order.

2. Brief facts of the case are on 22.7.2011, a written complaint was received through the Court which was filed by the State Government through the Sub-Registrar (Registration), Ratangarh against 11 persons who are the present petitioners. It was stated in the complaint that Tarun Kumar Chaklan, who is partner of Balaji Properties, filed a complaint before the Sub-Registrar, Registrar and Stamps on 29.11.2010 that sale-deed was executed by Nand Kishore in favour of Vinod Singh Mertiya on 29.11.2010 on the false statement. On the complaint, Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps conducted the enquiry and had given the finding that on false statement, the sale-deed dated 29.11.2010 was got registered and hence the present petitioners have committed offence under Section 82(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short the Act") and on this complaint, the impugned F.I.R. has been registered.

3. The main contention of the prosecution and the complainant is that the impugned sale-deed was presented with false statement and the seller Nand Kishore is not the owner of the disputed land and hence when there is an intentional false statement, offence under Section 82(a) has to be investigated. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this is not the domain of Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps to enquire into the bona fide dispute between the parties and in this regard, he has placed reliance on Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955, which reads as under:

"Rule 39. Registering Officers not concerned with validity of documents.- Registering Officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents . to them for registration and that it would be wrong for them to refuse to register on any such grounds as under:

(1) that the executant was dealing with property not belonging to him:

"Provided that the registering officer shall not register the document unless he is satisfied himself that the property does not belong to the Government or any local body."

4. A bare perusal of above quoted provision goes to show that the Registering Officer could not and should not go into the validity of the documents and they could not deal with the question whether the property is belonging to the seller or not.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that there is dispute between Nand Kishore and others co-sharers Sushil Kumar, Sakkan Kumar and Moti Lal and he is the owner of 25% of the land. Initially the land was purchased in 1924 and in pedigrees Mali Ram and her mother had come in third generation and after death of her mother Saraswati Devi, he being son, is also co-owner of the property.

6. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner Tarun Kumar has submitted that the land was sold by Sushil Kumar, Sahhan Kumar and Moti Lal through his power of attorney holder Pawan Kumar long back in 2008 and Nand Kishore was having knowledge of that sale-deed and hence he has no right over the property.

7. Be that may be the case. There is a dispute between the parties, Nand Kishore is claiming right over the land through his mother and Tarun Kumar is claiming right through Sushil Kumar, Sajjan Kumar and Moti Lal, on the strength of sale deed dated 29.2.2008 but as Section 39(1) (supra) clearly indicates that this question cannot be looked into at the time of registration. Hence, this cannot be termed as a false statement as invested in Section 82 (1) of the Registration Act.

8. The other contention of the complainant Tarun Kumar and the learned Public Prosecutor is that the land was converted into commercial purpose before the impugned sale and this fact was in the knowledge of Nand Kishore because other co-accused Prakash Singh