IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7792 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
Smt. V. Sujatha, Aged 39 years, Wife of Sri. S.P. Sathisha, Occ: Sub–Registrar, Kunigal, Having her address at Sub–Registrar’s Office, Taluk Office Compound, Kunigal – 572 142, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District. …Petitioner (By Sri. Appiah P.B., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Amruthur Police Station, Amruthur, Kunigal – 572 142, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 01.
2. Smt. Thimmamma, Aged about 70 years, Wife of Sri. Chennaiah, Residing at Kaggere Village, Yadiyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 130. ...Respondents (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1; R2 – served and unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR and all further proceedings in Cr.No.211/2013 on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kunigal, Tumkur District.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent No.1.
2. Petitioner was the Sub-Registrar of Kunigal Registration Office. A Gift Deed was presented before her for registration on 29.10.2013. The same was registered by the petitioner in accordance with the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965.
3. A complaint came to be lodged against five accused persons including the present petitioner on 05.12.2013 alleging that with an intent to cheat and defraud respondent No.2, by playing fraud and impersonation, a gift deed was presented for registration by accused Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with accused Nos.3 and 4 and the petitioner herein acted in dereliction of the duty by registering the said property.
4. As could be seen from the averments made in the complaint, the only allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein was negligent in discharge of her duty. There are no allegations whatsoever insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned that she was either a party to the alleged fraud or impersonation or that the said offence was committed with the knowledge and connivance of the petitioner. In the absence of any such allegation, initiation of criminal action against the petitioner, in my view, is legally untenable and cannot be sustained. That apart, records reveal that on receiving the instant petition, an interim stay of further proceedings against accused No.5/petitioner herein was granted on 04.03.2014. Accordingly, the investigation commenced only against accused Nos.1 to 4 and charge sheet has been laid against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Even in the said charge sheet there are no allegations whatsoever that the alleged document has been brought about with the active connivance and abetment of the petitioner. The act performed by the petitioner is protected under Section 86 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Section reads as under:
“86. Registering Officer not liable for thing bona fide done or refused in his official capacity. – No Registering Officer shall be liable to any suit, claim or demand by reason of anything in good faith done or refused in his official capacity.”
As there are allegations that the petitioner herein was negligent in discharging her duties, prosecution of the petitioner could not have been initiated without prior sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned proceedings, in my view, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated in Crime No.211/2013 for the alleged offences under Section 419, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed, only in so far as petitioner herein is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE SV