IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the duties of the Sub Registrar under the Registration Act are limited to the registration process and do not include verifying the title and ownership of the property. The court emphasized that the duty of the Sub Registrar is to register the document if presented with proper stamp duty and registration charges.

JUDGMENT :

R. HEMALATHA, J.

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C. No. 435 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

1. Seeking to quash the final report in C.C. No. 435/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, the present petition is filed by the 8th accused.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows:

2.1. There was a civil dispute between one Raja Kumaran Sethupathy and one Muniyandi, the President of Vannar Association in O.S. No. 97/1997 before the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram in respect of the lands in S.Nos.113 to 120 of Surakottai Village. A compromise decree was passed on 30.01.2006, whereby, the plaintiff Raja Kumaran Sethupathy was directed to execute sale deeds in favour of the persons mentioned by the defendant Muniyandi. Subsequently, the plaintiff sold his share of land measuring 3.44 cents to and in favour of M.K. Mohammad Ali through a registered sale deed dated 02.01.2008. He also sold 871 square feet of land to the father of M.K. Mohammad Ali through a registered sale deed dated 26.05.2008. While so, Muniyandi, the defendant in O.S. No. 97/1997 conspired with the other accused and created a bogus Town Survey Field Register and an Encumbrance Certificate and executed a registered settlement deed for the same land in favour of Thangavel (A2), son of Koori on 27.07.2015, who in turn executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Saravanan (A4). Based on the complaint given by M.K. Mohammad Ali (defacto complainant), the Inspector of Police, Anti-land grabbing cell, Ramanathapuram District registered FIR in Crime No. 53/2015 against eight accused persons including the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) IPC. After concluding investigation, he filed a final report in C.C. No. 435/2019 before the Special Judicial Magistrate (Land Grabbing cases), Ramanathapuram against 8 accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 420, 423, 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) IPC and subsequently it was transferred to Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram. The petitioner was working as Sub Registrar in the Sub Registrar Office at Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram. The specific allegation against the present petitioner is that he conspired with other accused A1 to A7 and even without verifying the bogus Encumbrance Certificate and Town Survey Field Register, had registered settlement deed executed by A1 in favour of A2 on 27.07.2015.

3. Mr. M. Deivanandam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that as per Section 52 of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar has to register a document unless there is an objection from any party at the time of registration of document. His specific contention is that the registering officer is not duty bound to verify the title and ownership of the persons who alienate the property and Rule 55 of the Registration Rules does not provide any enquiry to be conducted by the Registering Officer with regard to the right and ownership of the property. It is also his contention that the petitioner as a Sub Registrar had discharged his official duty and therefore cannot be fastened with criminal liability for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) IPC. It is also his contention that there are no materials available on record to show that the petitioner conspired with other accused to fabricate the document.

4. Per contra, Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and Mr. B. Arun, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the Police after conducting proper investigation had laid a final report and there are no valid grounds to quash the same and that the Sub Registrar had in fact conspired with the other