State of M. P. vs Surendra Kori - 2012 Supreme(MP) 523

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(MP) 523

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, JJ.
State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori
Criminal Appeal No.1508 of 2012 [arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.3149 of 2010] with Criminal Appeal No.1509 of 2012 [arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.3150 of 2010 to Criminal No.1561 of 2012] [arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.3623 of 2010] : against judgment dated 22.1.2009, passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Case No.1073 of 2008;
Decided on 26.9.2012.

Advocates:
Sidharth Dave, Abhimanyu Singh and C.D. Singh for appellant;
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad for respondent.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B -- Registration Act, 1908 -- Ss.34, 81 and 64 -- scope of inherent powers -- registration of several fictitious and fraudulent sale-deeds -- FIR and charge-sheets against Sub-Registrar, vendors and vendees -- enquiry not completed -- in such circumstances -- quashing of FIR and charge-sheets under inherent powers not justified.
       Held : The High Court in exercise of its powers under section 482 CrPC does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under section 482 CrPC, should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. (2002)1 SCC 234, (2005)13 SCC 540 and (2006)12 SCC 763 relied on.
       The respondent, it was alleged, registered various documents relating to the project without verifying the credentials of the purchaser and seller and without examining that the land covered by the sale-deeds is in existence or not or the lands belongs to the State Government. Office of the Registrar, it was pointed out, had issued an O.M. dated 28.4.2005 to all the Sub-Registrars stating that while registering the sale-deeds in order to prevent registration of fake sale-deeds to verify the identity of the seller for which he has to ask for photo identification proof from the seller such as PAN Card or Passport, which was not done. Further it was noticed that certain deeds were executed in respect of the lands which were not wholly situated in his own sub-districts and that the provisions of section 64 of the Registration Act was not followed.
        [Para 14
       In view of the magnitude of the crime, the number of documents alleged to have been executed fraudulently, the reports referred to in the charge-sheets and the involvement of the respondent etc. could be decided only if an opportunity is given to the prosecution. The High Court, in such circumstances, was not justified in quashing all the first information report and the charge-sheets in exercise of its powers under section 482 CrPC.
       (2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.114 -- Registration Act, 1908 -- Ss.34 and 81 -- registration of fictitious and fraudulent sale-deeds -- presumption of -- when document has duly executed -- it will be presumed that it has been registered in accordance with law -- burden of proof -- is upon prosecution to show that Sub-Registrar has misused his position and was a party to fraud. AIR 1941 PC 16 relied on. [Para 16
       ¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471 rFkk 120[k && jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 && /kkjk 34] 81 RkFkk 64 && varfuZfgr ‘kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr && dfYir rFkk diViw.kZ vusd fodz; foys[kkas dk jftLVªhdj.k & mi&jftLVªkj] fodzsrkvksa rFkk dzsrkvksa ds fo#) izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ rFkk vkjksi&i= && tk¡p iw.kZ ugha gqbZ && bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa && varfuZfgr ‘kfDr;ksa ds v/khu izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ rFkk vkjksi&i= vikLr djuk U;k;kuqer ughaA
       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % mPp U;k;ky; naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu viuh ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx vihy ;k iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; ds :i esa ugha djrkA bl U;k;ky; us] vusd fu.kZ;ksa esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu varfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk] ;|fi O;kid gS] de] lrdZrk ls lko/kkuh ds lkFk iz;qDr fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA mPp U;k;ky; dks] naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu] tgk¡ iw.kZ rF; viw.kZ rFkk vfuf’pr gksa ogk¡ lkekU;r% izFken`”V~;k fu.kZ; nsus ls fojr jguk pkfg,] blds vfrfjDr tc lk{; gh ,df=r ugha dh xbZ gks rFkk U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS rFkk varZofyr fook|d] D;k rF;kRed ;k fof/kd egRo ds gSa rFkk fcuk i;kZIr lkexzh ds mudks lgh gksus ds ifjisz{; esa ugha ns[kk tk ldrkA ¼2002½ 1 ,l lh lh 234] ¼2005½ 13 ,l lh lh 540 rFkk ¼2006½ 12 ,l lh lh 763 voyafcrA
       ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS] fd izR;FkhZ us dzsrkvksa rFkk fodzsrkvksa ds izR;;ksa dk lR;kiu fd, fcuk ifj;kstuk ls lacaf/kr vusdksa nLrkost jftLVªhd`r fd, gS rFkk ;g ijh{k.k fd, fcuk fd fodz; foys[kksa esa lfEefyr Hkwfe fo|eku gS ;k ugha vFkok Hkwfe jkT; ljdkj dh gSA jftLVªkj ds dk;kZy; us] ;g crk;k gS] fd fnukad 28-4-2005 dks leLr mi&jftLVªkjksa dks ;g dgrs gq, vks-,e- tkjh fd;k Fkk fd tc Hkh fodz; foys[kksa dk jftLVªhdj.k djuk gks rc tkyh fodz; foys[kksa dk jftLVªhdj.k jksdus ds vuqdze esa fodzsrk dh igpku dk lR;kiu djuk gksxk ftlds fy, mls igpku dh lcwr esa mldk tSlk fd isu dkMZ ;k ikliksVZ Nk;k fp= ek¡xuk gksxk] tks ugha fd;k x;kA blds vfrfjDr ;g tkudkjh esa vk;k fd dfri; fodz; foys[k ,slh Hkwfe ds fo”k; esa fu”ikfnr fd, x, tks mlds Lo;a ds mi&ftyksa esa fcYdqy fLFkr ugha Fkh rFkk jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 64 ds mica/kksa dk vuqlj.k ugha fd;k x;kA
       vijk/k ds egRo ds n`f”Vdks.k ls] vf/kd la[;k esa diViw.kZ nLrkostksa dk fu”ikfnr fd;k tkuk vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS] vkjksi&i=ksa esa lanfHkZr fjiksVZ~l rFkk izR;FkhZ vkfn dk varoZfyr gksuk dsoy rc fofu’pr fd;k tk ldrk gS ;fn vfHk;kstu dks volj iznku fd;k x;k gSA mPp U;k;ky; dks] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx dj leLr izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ~l rFkk vkjksi&i=ksa dks vikLr djuk U;k;kuqer ugha FkkA
       ¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 114 && jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 && /kkjk 34 rFkk 81 && dfYir rFkk diViw.kZ fodz; foys[kksa dk jftLVªhdj.k && dh mi/kkj.kk && tc nLrkost lE;d~ :i ls fu”ikfnr fd;k x;k gks && ;g mi/kkj.kk dh tk,xh fd ;g fof/k ds vuqlkj jftLVªhd`r fd;k x;k gS && lcwr dk izek.k Hkkj && vfHk;kstu ij ;g izekf.kr djus dk gS fd mi&jftLVªkj us vius in dk nq:i;ksx fd;k rFkk diV esa i{kdkj FkkA , vkb vkj 1941 ih lh 16 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 16½

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side.

3. We are disposing of all these fifty four appeals by common order since the identical issues arise for consideration in all these appeals. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, we may refer to the facts in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.3149 of 2010, treating the same as the leading case.

4. The respondent herein, who was functioning as the Deputy Registrar, Khargone, was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under sections 34 and 81 of the Registration Act. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench, in exercise of its powers conferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’), quashed the first information reports and the charge-sheets filed against the respondent and also quashed the Criminal Case No.2500 of 2007 and other connected matters. In order to properly appreciate the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the High Court, it is necessary to refer to few facts.

5. State of Madhya Pradesh had introduced a Special Rehabilitation Package (for short ‘Package’) for those persons who were displaced from their lands, submerged while implementing the Sardar Sarovar Project (for short ‘the Project’). As per the Package, for the Project affected persons/oustees, cash benefit in two instalments was provided to enable them to purchase land of their choice. The amount would be deposited in bank accounts of the oustees and the first instalment would be released when the oustees submits an affidavit intending to purchase land and the second and final instalment would be released when both the seller and the purchaser would get their sale-deed registered and submit the proof of such registration of sale-deed. For availing of the benefit of that Package it was alleged, various fake sale-deeds were got registered in the Registrar’s Office at Khargone. Complaints were raised about the manner in which the benefit of the Package was availed of by persons who were not affected by the Project. Narmada Bachao Andolan also filed a complaint before the Narmada Valley Development Authority regarding registration of fake sale-deeds for claiming the benefit of the Package.

6. The Collector, District Khargone, vide its letter dated 23.7.2007, directed the Deputy Collector, Khargone to conduct an inquiry and submit a report. The Deputy Collector submitted the report on 11.9.2007. The operative portion of the report reads as follows :

“Because the detailed enquiry of these sale transactions do not seem to be possible without the police action; therefore, registering of the criminal case and sending this initial enquiry report to the Narmada Valley Development Authority for the proceedings of sentencing the guilty persons after detailed enquiry and getting the case registered for the police action by the land acquisition officer through the Collector of the concerned district are proposed.”

6.1 Further, referring to several sale-deeds, it was specifically pointed out that some of the vendees and vendors of the documents were fictitious persons and deeds were executed and registered fraudulently.

7. Several FIRs were registered on the complaints filed by the Rehabilitation Officer of the Project, District Khargone before the Kotwali Police Station. In the FIR No.496 dated 18.9.2007 the report of the Deputy Collector dated 11.9.2007 was specifically referred. The operative portion of the FIR reads as follows :

“12. .... Reference -- received the letter No.791 dated 11.9.2007 of the Collector, Khargone for necessary action. Regarding the aforesaid subject, it is said that name - displaced (vendee) Naniya s/o Hariya r/o Gangli has received amount of Rs.3,39,857/- as the special rehabilitation grant after submitting the registration serial No.A-1/2575 dated 25.3.2006. The Additional Collector, Khargone has found this in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document