P U SARALA Vs. GOPI, S/O VELIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired Sub Registrar, is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending against her in C.C.No.4352 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy. In the aforesaid case, she was called upon to answer a charge for the offence punishable under Sections 166 and 167 of the IPC.

(2.) The facts indispensable for adjudicating the issue involved in this petition depict that an item of property having an extent of 27 cents was owned by the grandfather of the petitioner. The property devolved on his mother and after her death, on the de facto complainant. According to him, on 29.05.2013, he approached the petitioner, who was then working as the Sub Registrar at the Kodaly Sub Registrar's Office, and sought for registering a settlement deed in favour of his son. For trivial reasons, the registration was refused. According to the de facto complainant, the petitioner had disobeyed the law by which, he was to carry out the registration and thus, caused injury to him. On these allegations, a complaint was lodged, consequent to which, Crime No.660 of 2013 was registered at the Vellikulangara Police Station under Sections 166 and 167 of the IPC. After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the allegations in the final report, even if it is admitted as true in its entirety, will not make out an offence against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was, during the relevant time, working as a Sub Registrar and the allegations are intricately connected with discharge of her official duty. All that the petitioner did when the document was presented for registration was to direct the de facto complainant to produce the Patta No.B5 36413/1957, the reference to which, was made mention of in the previous documents. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was bound to ascertain as to whether the de facto complainant had acquired any right whatsoever over the property. She was mandated to do so in terms of the Act and Rules and also the Circular issued by the Inspector General (Registration). It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner had not disobeyed any legal direction concerning the way she should have conducted herself as a public servant. Neither the offence under Section 166 of the IPC nor Section 167 of the IPC was made out, submits the learned counsel.