H.V.VIMALAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the final report in C.C.Nos.160, 151 and 152 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Karaikal, wherein, the petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused 6, accused 8 and accused 3 respectively.

(2.) The final reports in the above three cases filed by the respondent indicate that between 22.12.2011 and 28.12.2011 at Sub Registrar Office, Neravy, Karaikal, the accused person noted in the charge sheet in Col.No.11 from A.1 to A.6 had criminally conspired with A.1 (Ramu @ Radhakrishnan) and A.2 (Ezhilarasi) have prepared a document relating to the properties mentioned in the document schedule (Commune No.34, TR Pattinam Natham Manai Survey No.121/505 Patta No.1242 (N) to the extent of 3 ares and 75 Santhiyar or 27.18/64 Kuzhi) with the forged power of attorney document of the complainant (Vinotha), registered some properties on 22.12.2012 in the name of A.3 (Murugan) and re-registered the above mentioned properties on 28.12.2011 in the name of A.2 (Ezhilarasi) by A.6 (Vimalan) being a public servant, which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause injury to the complainant. Thus, A.1 and A.2 committed offences punishable U/s 465, 420 I.P.C., r/w 120(B) I.P.C., and A.6 (Vimalan) committed offences U/s 167 r/w 120(B) I.P.C.

(3.) The petitioner herein contends that the materials collected during the investigation and placed before the Court for trial does not disclose any offence against the petitioner. As a public servant, working under the District Registrar he is bound to register the documents presented for registration by any parties. Accordingly, he has done the duty in accordance with the Registration Act. When there was objection for registering the document received from the defacto complainant, he has kept the document pending without registering. Meanwhile, the party who presented the document, preferred statutory appeal before the District Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, and the same was allowed. Therefore, pursuant to the order passed by the District Registrar, the petitioner has registered the subject document, which is now been alleged by the defacto complainant as forged and fabricated document executed with intention to cheat.