IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION No.55725/2016(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. D.Shivakumar, S/o Dodda Hanumaiah, Aged about 36 years, Working as Senior Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Doddaballapur, Bengaluru Rural District-561 203.
(By Sri.M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate) AND:
1. The State by Sub Inspector of Police, Nelamangala Police Station, Nelamangala Circle, Bengaluru Rural District-562 123.
2. Smt. Asha, W/o Sachidananda, Aged about 36 years, Residing at No.832, 5th Main Road, 5th Cross, M.C.Layout, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru-560 040.
…Petitioner ...Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1; Sri. B. Roopesha, Advocate for R2-Absent) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the impugned complaint dated 25.10.2016 given by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-A) and impugned first information report in Crime No.307/2016 dated 25.10.2016 pending on the file of the respondent No.1 (Annexure-B) and all proceedings thereon is so far as the petitioner is concerned.
This Writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner was the Sub Registrar of Nelamangala in the Department of Revenue (Stamps and Registration). A complaint was filed against the petitioner and other accused persons by respondent No.2, based on which Crime No.307/2016 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 417, 420 read with 34 of IPC. The case of the complainant is that in respect of the immovable property bearing Site No.38, Katha No.268/38 measuring East to West – 50 feet and North to South – 40 feet situated at Kempegowda Nagar Layout, Arishinakunte Village, Nelamangala Taluk a forged sale deed was presented for registration before the petitioner herein and without verifying the photograph and identity of the executant, the said deed was registered by the petitioner.
2. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Sulochanamma V/s H.Nanjundaswamy and others reported in 2001 (1) KLJ 215; M.Ramakrishna Reddy V/s Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar reported in ILR 1999 KAR 2033; Sri.Devaraju.B V/s The State, Criminal Petition No.4158/2014 and connected matters (DD 07.12.2016), the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has acted in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965. There are no allegations whatsoever in the complaint that the petitioner was aware of the falsity of the documents presented before him. In the absence of any averments to the effect that petitioner also participated in the alleged acts of criminal conspiracy and falsification of records merely on the ground that documents presented before him were registered in the course of his duties cannot be a ground for prosecution of the petitioner. Hence, the prosecution launched against the petitioner being wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court is liable to be quashed.
3. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 while disputing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the wake of clear allegations contained in the complaint, the matter calls for thorough investigation and hence, the impugned proceedings do not deserve to be quashed.
4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
5. A reading of the complaint indicates that a sale deed relating to the immovable property belonging to the complainant was presented for registration before the petitioner on 13.10.2015. I have perused the copy of the said sale deed at Annexure-C. Except registering the said document, there is nothing in the said document to show that the petitioner herein has identified either the executant or the purchaser of the property. On the other hand, the endorsement made in the document clearly discloses that the executant was identified by the witnesses by name Alakh Narayana Singh and Lawrence D’Cruz. The petitioner has not taken up the responsibility of identifying any one of the executant or the purchaser of the property. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that the identity of the parties was known to the petitioner, no knowledge of alleged forgery or impersonation can be imputed to the petitioner. Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 casts a duty on the Registering Officer to register the documents presented before him, unless the registration thereof is objected by any person on the grounds specified therein. It 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.”
6. 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. In this context, it may be useful to refer to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of S.Sreenivasa Rao V/s Sub Registrar reported in ILR 1990 KAR 3740. Considering the similar issue raised before this Court as to the duties of the Sub Registrar, the Division Bench of this Court at para 6 of the said order has observed as under:
“6. Coming to the next question as to whether the Registrar of Societies could have issued a direction to the Sub-Registrar not to register a particular document, learned Counsel for the respondents - 3 to 5, 7 and 10, could not point out any provision either in the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 or the Rules framed thereunder or in the Registration Act, 1908, which authorised the Registrar of Societies to make such a direction. We also find no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 which obliges the Sub- Registrar to act upon any such direction and/or to investigate at the stage of registration of a document itself, the title of the party executing the document. We are, therefore of the view that if a document is presented for registration by the executant, and in doing so, the executant complies with all the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, it is not open to the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of the document unless he exercises that discretion pursuant to any provision in the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law or Rule having the force of law. The mere registration of a document is by itself not a proof of its validity, neither does it follow that the executant had title to the property, he seeks to dispose of under the document. Matters such as relating to title have to be decided before the appropriate forum. If any person is interested in contending that any particular document executed and registered under the Registration Act, 1908 is invalid or illegal for any reason whatsoever, he is certainly at liberty to question the validity of the document, the title of the executant, and such other questions before the proper forum in an appropriate proceeding. Similarly, if it is sought to be contended in the instant case that the Trust Deed has been executed in contravention of the provision of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 any person aggrieved may challenge the validity of the Trust Deed in a duly constituted proceeding. There is, however, no warrant for the proposition that the registration of the document itself can be prevented by directing the Sub-Registrar not to register the document. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the direction issued by the Registrar of Societies to the Sub-Registrar was competent and consequently Annexure-D was also valid.”
From the above proposition, it follows that when the document is presented for registration, the Sub Registrar is not required to investigate into the title of the parties executing the document nor it is open to Sub Registrar to refuse registration of the document, unless the presentation thereof is objected to on the ground mentioned therein.
7. In the case of Devaraju.B V/s The State referred supra, this Court has elaborately considered the obligations of the Sub Registrar with regard to registration of the documents and having regard to the provision of Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 and the law laid down by this Court in various other decisions referred to above quashed the proceedings initiated against the Sub-Registrar. Facts of the instant case bear resemblance to the facts of the above case. In the absence of any allegations imputing knowledge to the petitioner about falsity of the document merely on the basis of registration of said document by the petitioner in the course of his duties is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. For the above reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings in Crime No.307/2016 registered by the 1st respondent Police are quashed only insofar as petitioner is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE UN