IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.54277 OF 2016(GM-RES) BETWEEN SRI. BHASKAR S. CHOUR S/O LATE SIDDARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, JALA, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560127 (BY SRI M S BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) AND ...PETITIONER 1 . THE STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION, CHIKKAJALA AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE-560127 2 . THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HUNASAMARANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COSTITTUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DTD:28.4.2016 GIVEN BY THE R-2 (ANNEXURE-A) AND IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.49/2016 DTD:3.5.2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 (ANNEXURE- B) AND ALL PROCEEDINGS THEREOF IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the first information report in Crime No.49/2016 consequent to the complaint dated 28.04.2016.
2. The petitioner was working as Sub-Registrar at Jala, Gandhinagar Registration District, in the year 2016. During the relevant point of time, it is alleged that he registered a document on 27.01.2016 bearing No.3768/2015-16, which according to the respondents was registered by the petitioner without verifying the documents submitted along with instrument and two such documents i.e., Form Nos.9 and 11 were bogus documents.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is no more res integra. The learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to two decisions of co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.4158/2014 and connected matters which were decided on 07.12.2016 and W.P.No.55725/2016 in the case of Sri D.Shivakumar Vs. The State by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nelamangala Police Station, which was decided on 08.07.2019.
4. In the batch of Crl.P. Nos.4158/2014 and connected matters under similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench while placing reliance on a decision of the Division Bench in the cases of S.Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar reported in ILR 1990 KAR 3740 and Smt.Sulochanamma Vs. H.Nanjundaswamy reported in 2001 (1) KLJ 215, held that when a document is presented for registration fulfilling all requirements, the Sub-Registrar has no option but to register the document unless the document is not in conformity with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act of 1908 and the relevant Rules and that the Sub-Registrar was entrusted with the duty of registering the documents in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Sub-Registrar was not authorized to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the documents presented before him. It was further held that if the documents are bogus and false, the party affected by it will have the right to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings to prosecute the parties who tries to have benefit from such document and also to safeguard his right, title and interest.
5. Similarly in the case of D.Shivakumar while taking note of Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed.
6. Rule 73 reads as under:
“73. Duties of the Registering Officer:- (i) It shall form no part of the Registering Officer’s duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document, provided execution is duty admitted; but in case of executants who are unable to read, the document shall be read out and if necessary explained to them. If the document is in a language which they do not understand it must be interpreted to them.
(ii) If registration is objected to by any person on any of the following grounds, viz., (a) that a person appearing or about to appear before the Registering Officer as an executant or claimant the person he Professes to be, or that he is a minor, an idiot, or lunatic;
(b) that the instrument is forged;
(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assignee or agent has no right to appear in that capacity;
(d) that the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by the party applying for registration;
Such objections shall be duly weighed by the Registering Officer and if they are substantiated, registration shall be refused but under sub-section (2) of Section 58, if execution be admitted, registration should take place even if the executant refuses to sign the Registering Officer’s endorsement of admission.”
7. Similar to the case of D.Shivakumar, it is noticeable that in the present matter too, it is not the case of the complainant that registration of the alleged document was objected to either by the complainant or any other person on the ground of impersonation or fraud.
8. This Court is in respectful agreement with the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches in the case of D.Shivakumar and Crl P.No.4158/2014 and connected matters.
9. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Cr.No.49/2016 pending on the file of the respondent No.2 and all proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned are hereby quashed and set aside.
It is ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE JT/-