BHUVANESHWAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused No.6, a Sub-Registrar working in the office of Sub- Registrar, Jamakhandi, has approached this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC. seeking quashing offIR in Crime No. 24/2020 at Jamakhandi Town Police Station, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of iPC.

(2.) A case was registered based on the complaint of one Chidanand Aj jappa Mali, a resident of Jamakhandi dated 25.02.2020 wherein it is alleged that in a compromise decree passed by this Court, in property bearing Survey No.33/3 land measuring 10 guntas and in Sy.No.33/12 land measuring 10 guntas, in all measuring 20 guntas of Hunnur village was allotted to him and one Vijayalakshmi Mendigeri (accused No.1) who is his cousin also got her share separately under the said decree. He has further stated in the complaint that the entire property including the share allotted to him under the compromise decree was still standing in the Revenue records in the name of accused No.1 stated earlier. On 10.01.2020 when he went to the office of the Sub- Registrar, Jamakhandi, he came to know that both the items of land allotted to him under the compromise decree before this Court were sold by accused No.1 by sale deeds registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jamakhandi. On inspection of the documents in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Jamakhandi, he came to know that a stamp paper of the value of Rs.200/- was obtained on 27.12.2019 from a Society in Jamakhandi and a document was prepared to the effect that complainant had given consent for the sale of the property allotted to his share in the compromise decree in favour of Toufik Moulasab who is accused No.2 in the case. He further came to know that there was recitalin the said consent letter that since it was going to take considerable time to get the property mutated in the name of the complainant, the said consent letter was given in favour of Smt. Vijayalakshmi Mendigeri (accused No.1) to execute the sale deed in favour of accused No.2. it is further stated in the complaint that the signature on the said alleged consent letter was a forged one and complainant had not signed the same. He has also alleged in the complaint that false recitals were made in the documents about huge amounts of money having been given to the complainant for giving the said consent letter. The further allegation is that two sale deeds dated 31.12.2019 were presented before the present petitioner who is the Sub-Registrar of Jamakhandi, for registration purporting to be sale deeds in respect of the property allotted to the share of the complainant in favour of accused No.2 and it contained forged signatures of the complainant. The details of the names of the persons who had signed as witnesses to the consent letter as well as to the sale deed have been given in the complaint. There is clear allegation against petitioner that he had colluded with the rest of the accused in committing the offences.

(3.) Learned counsel Sri. Gundawade appearing for the petitioner herein submits that petitioner is an official working in the capacity of Sub-Registrar, Jamakhandi and under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, (the Rules for short) it was no part of his duty to enquire into the validity of the document and since it was presented before him, in performance of his duties, he had only registered the document and therefore, he has not committed any offence, much less, offence alleged in the FIR under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 ofiPC and therefore, if on such a complaint the petitioner is made to face investigation, it will be abuse of process of law and accordingly, it is a fit case for quashing of the FIR. He further contended vehemently and in great elaboration that in the sale deeds there is a clear recital that the complainant had given consent to accused No.1 for executing the sale deed in favour of accused No.2.