M. SURIYA PRABHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking to quash the final report in C.C.No.435/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, the present petition is filed by the 8th accused.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows.

(3.) Mr.M.Deivanandam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that as per Sec. 52 of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar has to register a document unless there is an objection from any party at the time of registration of document. His specific contention is that the registering officer is not duty bound to verify the title and ownership of the persons who alienate the property and Rule 55 of the Registration Rules does not provide any enquiry to be conducted by the Registering Officer with regard to the right and ownership of the property. It is also his contention that the petitioner as a Sub Registrar had discharged his official duty and therefore cannot be fastened with criminal liability for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 423, 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) IPC. It is also his contention that there are no materials available on record to show that the petitioner conspired with other accused to fabricate the document.