GURMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concisely, the relevant facts and material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that one Hakam Singh son of Hari Singh was the owner of land in question. Having mortgaged the land as security, he obtained a loan of the amount of Rs. 1,66,000/- on 12.11.2003 from the Punjab Agriculture Development Bank Limited complainant-respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant Bank"). Thereafter, on the basis of family settlement, Hakam Singh transferred the land in favour of his real daughter Rani Kaur, by means of registered sale deed, bearing No.50 dated 13.4.2006 and in favour of his son Mohan Singh, by virtue of separate sale deed, bearing No.2677 dated 11.2.2004.

(2.) After the transfer of land, the complainant-Bank, through its Manager, moved an application (Annexure P1) to SSP Barnala against the vendor and vendees that although Hakam Singh obtained the loan after mortgaging the land, but he has executed the registered sale deed dated 13.4.2006 in favour of his daughter Rani Kaur, with a view to play with the funds of the bank. Petitioner Gurmeet Singh was posted as Naib Tehsildar/Registering Authority at Tapa at the relevant time. In the back ground of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant-Bank, a criminal case was registered against the accused, including the petitioner, by way of FIR, bearing No.46 dated 17.4.2008 (Annexure P2) on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Tapa, District Barnala.

(3.) The petitioner (Naib Tehsildar) did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that he has registered the sale deed in question in discharge of his official duty as Sub Registrar, in view of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). It was claimed that he was not the beneficiary of the transaction in any manner and since the indicated sale deed was registered in accordance with law, so, no offence whatsoever punishable under Section 420 IPC is made out against him in this respect. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR (Annexure P2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in the manner indicated hereinbefore.