TIMMANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the Senior Subregistrar of Dharwad. A complaint was filed against the petitioner and other accused persons by respondent No.2, based on which Crime No.124/2021 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(f) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that, she was granted land bearing R.S.No.10, measuring 5 acres, situated at Itigatti village by the Land Tribunal, Dharwad. In respect of the said property, the complainant filed a Writ Petition No.114571/2019 before this Court on 11.10.2019 and the said case was taken up on board for hearing on 23.03.2021, meanwhile another Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.148864/2020 was also on board for hearing on the very day, which is filed by the GPA holder of the complainant. The complainant alleged that, she has never executed any GPA and the alleged GPA is a created document by forged thumb impression and photo of the complainant on 13.04.2015. The accused No.2 behind the back and without knowledge of the complainant and with the assistance of accused No.6 who is the scribe of the document has prepared a forged GPA and got it signed by the accused Nos.4 and 5, who are the witnesses to the alleged GPA and got it registered through the Sub-registrar i.e. petitioner/accused No.3 by presenting the accused No.1 as executant. The accused persons have played fraud on the complainant even though knowing well that, she belongs to a Scheduled Caste.

(3.) Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the cases of S.Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Sub Registrar , 1990 ILR(Kar) 3740 ; Sri. Devaraju B. Vs. The State in Criminal Petition No.4158/2014 and connected matters (DD 07.12.2016); Sri. D. Shivakumar S/o. Dodda Hanumaiah Vs. The State and another, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner has acted in the 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. The prosecution launched against the petitioner being wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court is liable to be quashed.