Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, J.
Rachakonda Srinivas Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana and Another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 3731 of 2020
Decided On : 17-08-2023
REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 81 - REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS - PENALTY FOR INCORRECTLY ENDORSING, COPYING, TRANSLATING OR REGISTERING DOCUMENTS WITH INTENT TO INJURE - PUBLIC SERVANT - PROSECUTION - SANCTION UNDER SECTION 197 OF CR.P.C. NOT REQUIRED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Joint Sub-Registrar, was accused of colluding with other accused to register nine sale deeds on the same day, four of which had the same person's photograph as the purchaser with different names and addresses. The petitioner argued that he had no duty to verify the details of the property or investigate the sellers and purchasers, and that he could not be prosecuted under the IPC or the Registration Act, 1908.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstances clearly indicated that the petitioner was part of the criminal conspiracy and had registered the documents with knowledge of their falsity. The court held that the petitioner's argument that he had no duty to verify the details of the property or investigate the sellers and purchasers was not tenable, as he had registered nine documents on the same day, four of which had the same person's photograph as the purchaser with different names and addresses.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, as a Joint Sub-Registrar, had a duty to verify the details of the property and investigate the sellers and purchasers before registering the sale deeds? 2. Whether the petitioner could be prosecuted under the IPC or the Registration Act, 1908, for registering the sale deeds without verifying the details of the property or investigating the sellers and purchasers? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., which requires sanction for the prosecution of public servants for offences committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner, as a Joint Sub-Registrar, had a duty to verify the details of the property and investigate the sellers and purchasers before registering the sale deeds. The court reasoned that the petitioner had registered nine documents on the same day, four of which had the same person's photograph as the purchaser with different names and addresses. This indicated that the petitioner had knowledge of the falsity of the documents and was part of the criminal conspiracy to register them. 2. The court held that the petitioner could be prosecuted under the IPC or the Registration Act, 1908, for registering the sale deeds without verifying the details of the property or investigating the sellers and purchasers. The court reasoned that the petitioner's actions had caused wrongful loss to persons and wrongful gain to the co-conspirators, and that he was not entitled to the protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., which requires sanction for the prosecution of public servants for offences committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., which requires sanction for the prosecution of public servants for offences committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. The court reasoned that the petitioner had not committed any offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, but had instead entered into a criminal conspiracy with other accused to register documents causing wrongful loss to persons and thereby wrongful gain to the co-conspirators.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's petition to quash the proceedings against him.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 5631 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally.
2. The petitioner was working as Joint Sub-Registrar in the Registration Office at Kukatpally. A1 was practicing Advocate in Nampally Court. He colluded with real estate brokers and other persons for the purpose of fabricating documents and selling plots to third parties. The plots were not owned by A1. In the present case, Sy. No. 156/1/2 in Mailardevipally limits belongs to TNGOs House Building Cooperative Society Limited. Since it was unguarded, the accused have entered into criminal conspiracy to execute sale deeds. A1 along with other accused forged signatures of President and Secretary of the Society on a resolution, which was prepared on a duplicate letter, duplicate seals and stamps were used to project the document as genuine. Nine sale deed documents were prepared on non judicial stamp papers and executed in favour of the accused Nos. 6 to 14. All the said documents were registered on the same day. A2 executed the said documents using fabricated resolution of the society, while A4 and A5 attested the documents as witnesses, though they were aware that registrations are false and made on the basis of fabricated documents.
3. The allegations against this petitioner is that he in collusion with A1 used photographs of A3 as a purchaser of four documents which are registered sale deeds bearing Nos. 5622/16, 5623/16, 5624/2016 and 56225 of 2016 in favour of four witnesses who were examined during investigation. The photograph was that of A3. However, the details and addresses were of the witnesses who were examined. It is alleged that A3 had impersonated and on the very same day, four documents were executed i.e. on 24.05.2016. Further, on the said date, five other documents were also registered by this petitioner at the instance of A1 in favour of A6, A7, A8 and A9, who were accused and another witness who was examined as LW-5 Suresh Kumar.
4. Though, A2 was no way concerned with the society, on the basis of fabricated documents by A1, he had sold away the plots.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was Joint Sub-Registrar. His job was to register the property in favour of parties who come to the office. It is not the duty of the petitioner to verify about the details of the property and cause any kind of investigation regarding the sellers and purchasers. In fact, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for any of the offences either under IPC or under the Registration Act, 1908.
6. Learned counsel relied on G.O.Ms. No. 119, dated 27.02.2013 to state that the Joint Sub-Registrars or Sub-Registrars had concurrent jurisdiction over areas specified in the G.O. For the said reason, it cannot be said that the registrations which were done were not within the jurisdiction of the petitioner in accordance with the G.O. It cannot be said that there was any kind of fraudulent intention to register the deeds.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent argued that the petitioner had registered nine documents on the very same day which itself would indicate that he was in collusion with the other accused. The photograph of A3 was reflected in four different documents as purchaser. It cannot be said that the petitioner did not even observe the said aspect and had without any fraudulent intention registered the documents.
8. As seen from the oral and documentary evidence collected during the course of investigation, nine documents were registered on 24.05.2016. In four registrations, A3’s photograph was affixed as purchaser with different names and addresses. Likewise, six other documents were also registered on the same day in respect of the same society. In the present facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner as registering officer could not observe that the very same person was appearing as purch
A public servant who enters into a criminal conspiracy with other accused to register documents causing wrongful loss to persons and thereby wrongful gain to the co-conspirators is not entitled to th....
A public servant cannot be prosecuted without specific allegations of wrongdoing; general claims of conspiracy without evidence do not sustain criminal charges.
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 a....
Quash of Criminal proceedings – Dismissed - Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be used sparingly and with circumspection
The absence of grounds in a Magistrate's order to proceed against accused constitutes an abuse of process and warrants quashing the proceedings.
A court may not quash criminal proceedings merely based on accusations of falsehood; evidence establishing a prima facie case necessitates trial to ascertain involvement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
