DADURAM SIDAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is duly appointed as Sub-Registrar under Section 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1908"). On 30.4.2008 while discharging his duty as Sub-Registrar he allowed "sale deed" to be registered under the Act of 1908 executed by Ramkunwar, Birsingh and Brindawati in favour of Sanjay Khess and Vijay Kumar Khess transferring 1.273 hectares of land out of total land 9.366 hectares, which they had at that time. At that point of time, the subject land which was transferred was held by four persons including one Anand Ram. On 24.5.2014 respondent No.8-Ramisha Bai, daughter of Anand Ram, one of co-owners, lodged a complaint to Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh after lapse of six years stating that her father Anand Ram was also co-owner of subject suit land, which has not been partitioned. Ramkunwar, Birsingh and Brindawati had sold the suit land to Sanjay Khess and Vijay Kumar Khess fraudulently as share has not been given to her, therefore, FIR be registered and necessary action be taken. On her report, FIR being Crime No.271/2014 was registered by the Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh on 7.8.2014 and ultimately, petitioner-Sub-Registrar, sellers and purchasers therein all were chargesheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court on 22.6.2016 for offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B and 424/34 of the IPC and the petitioner and other co-accused persons are standing trial. The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the registration of FIR and consequent charge-sheet filed against him for the above-stated offences.

(2.) Mr.Soumitra Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner herein/Sub-Registrar, who registered sale deed in favour of two accused persons, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of entire charge-sheet principally on the ground that he has purely acted in the capacity of Sub-Registrar under the Act of 1908 and he has duly registered sale deed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act of 1908 and upon making an enquriy under Section 34 of the Act of 1908 which does not contemplate by making any enquiry qua title of the person who has executed sale deed in favour of purchaser under Section 34 (3) of the Act of 1908, as such, charge-sheet filed on the basis of complaint of respondent No.8, who is daughter of Anand Ram, one of the co-owners, deserves to be quashed as allegation made in the FIR/complaint, even if, they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner, therefore, entire prosecution case deserves to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.S.K.Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 7/State would support the prosecution and would rely upon the provisions contained in Section 38 of the Act of 1908. He would submit that though the subject suit land, which was transferred by respondents No.2 to 4 in favour of respondents No.5 and 6, was also recorded in the name of Anand Ram, father of respondent No.8, but the petitioner did not make any enquiry qua absolute title of vendors and deliberately allowed sale deed to be executed in favour of respondents No.5 & 6 and thereby committed the aforesaid offences, which has rightly been taken cognizance of and the petitioner is being prosecuted along with other co-accused persons i.e. respondents No.2 to 6, which cannot be taken exception by filing the writ petition, which is strictly in accordance with law.