A public servant cannot be prosecuted without specific allegations of wrongdoing; general claims of conspiracy without evidence do not sustain criminal charges.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the FIR and criminal proceeding arising out of East Tundi P.S. Case No. 33 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the District Sub-Registrar of Govindpur in Dhanbad in connivance and aid of the co-accused persons in conspiracy to fulfill his own personal benefit, has got registered certain documents even though the land involved in the same belongs to the informant.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. Drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 08 of 2007, the Special Leave Petition against which order has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (CC) No. 11962 of 2007 vide order dated 13.12.2007, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therein, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the District Sub-Registrar cannot decided the title of the parties for the purpose of registering of the sale deeds. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in capacity of District Sub-Registrar is not supposed to make any physical verification of the land. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation of impersonation of any executant of the sale deeds. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are vague and there is no allegation against the petitioner as to which document has been tampered with by the petitioner and in what manner. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a public servant yet no sanction has been obtained from the competent authority for prosecuting the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satya Pal Anand vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1202, paragraph no. 36 of which reads as under:-

“36. If the document is required to be compulsorily registered, but while doing so some irregularity creeps in, that, by itself, cannot result in a fraudulent action of the State Authority. Non-presence of the other party to the extinguishment deed presented by the Society before the Registering Officer by no standard can be said to be a fraudulent action per se. The fact whether that was done deceitfully to cause loss and harm to the other party to the deed, is a question of fact which must be pleaded and proved by the party making such allegation. That fact cannot be presumed. Suffice it to observe that since the provisions in the 1908 Act enables the Registering Officer to register the documents presented for registration by one party and execution thereof to be admitted or denied by the other party thereafter, it is unfathomable as to how the registration of the document by following procedure specified in the 1908 Act can be said to be fraudulent. As aforementioned, some irregularity in the procedure committed during the registration process would not lead to a fraudulent e