ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the F.I.R dated 19.08.2016, registered in Crime No.25 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent Police.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A3, who served as the Sub-Registrar, Gummidipoondi, registered a document based on a forged sale deed, presented by the accused 1 & 2, with respect to the property belonging to the defacto complainant, situated in Survey No.112/5 measuring 2.03 cents in Madurapanpakkam Village, Kilmadhurampedu, Gummidipoondi Taluk. The said forged sale deed was presented to the petitioner on 16.12.2015 for registration. The registration was done by the petitioner on extraneous consideration without examining the parent document, patta and the original owner of the property. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant, on 19.08.2016, FIR was registered against the petitioner and other accused in Crime No.25 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 491 IPC., by the first respondent Police.

3.Challenging the F.I.R, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a Circular dated

09.12.2015, whereby, the petitioner was deputed for issuance of fresh certificate, for those who lost their original documents during the floods. The deputation period was from 14.12.2015 to 27.12.2015. Therefore, the petitioner was also deputed for special duty at the time of registration of the alleged document and that she did not serve as the Sub-Registrar at Gummidipundi Sub-Registrar Office. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the FIR was registered wrongly against the petitioner and the same is liable to be quashed.

5.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that at present, the genuinity of the Circular dated 09.12.2015 cited on behalf of the petitioner, was not known. Even assuming that the Circular was issued and the petitioner was on deputation from 14.12.2015 to 27.12.2015, it is not in dispute that, the petitioner was in charge of the Gummidipoondi Sub-Registrar Office on the date of presentation of the alleged document and ultimately, it was the petitioner who registered and released the document. The said fact was also admitted by the petitioner.

6. Further, the learned Government Advocate contended that as per Section 34 of the Tamilnadu Registration Act, 1908, before effecting the registration of a document, the Sub-Registrar ought to have conducted an enquiry about the identity of the person, who executed the sale deed. Here, no such enquiry was done and the identity of person was not verified properly. Of course, the Sub-Registrar does not have any power to decide and determine the title of the property, but, atleast he can very well verify the identity of the person at the time of the registration and releasing the document, which was not done by the petitioner. Therefore, based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered in Crime No.25 of 2016 and the same is under investigation. Due to the pendency of the present Criminal Original Petition, first respondent is not in a position to proceed with the case. Further, if the petitioner wants to agitate anything as regards his deputation etc., all those points cannot be decided by this Court and the same can only be decided during the course of trial. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present petition. However, he fairly submitted that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to raise all the points before the Court below.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

8.A perusal of the complaint would show that the second respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police alleging that on 16.12.2015, the petitioner/A3 joining with other two persons/A1 & A2, reg