Karnataka High Court
Timmanna S/O. Ningappa Bavoor vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03 R D DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100926/2021
BETWEEN:
TIMMANNA S/O. N INGAPPA BAV OOR,
AGE 59 YEARS ,
OCC: SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, DHA RWAD,
R/O. LOBO APA RTMENT, MICHIGIN
COMPOUND , SA PT APUR,
DHARWAD - 580008
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUMANGALA A . CHAKALABBI, ADV OCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH DHA RW AD SUB- URBAN
P.S ., STATE PUBLI C PROSECUTOR,
DHARWAD - 580001.
2. SMT. BASAVVA W/ O. NINGA PPA
GAMANAGATTI @ CHIMATAPPANAVA R,
AGE 64 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD W ORK,
R/O. SHIVANAND NAGAR,
NEAR HOSAYALLA PURA,
DHARWAD - 580001.
... RES PONDENTS
(SRI. R. RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. HEMANTHAKUMAR L. HAVARA GI, ADV. FOR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE
ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUA SHING THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN HUBBALLI-DHA RWAD SUB-URBAN
POLI CE STATION CRIME NO.124/ 2021 REGISTERED BY
THE RES PONDENT NO.1 FOR THE A LLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UND ER SECTI ON 419, 465, 467, 468,
471, 420, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(F) OF THE S C
AND ST (PREV EN TION OF ATROCI TIES) AMENDMENT
ACT, 2015, PEN DING BEFORE T HE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUD GE
DHARWAD, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERN ED AND GRANT ANY OT HER RELI EF.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner was the Senior Sub-
registrar of Dharwad. A complaint was filed against the petitioner and other accused persons by respondent No.2, based on which Crime No.124/2021 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 3 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(f) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The case of the complainant is that, she was granted land bearing R.S.No.10, measuring 5 acres, situated at Itigatti village by the Land Tribunal, Dharwad. In respect of the said property, the complainant filed a Writ Petition No.114571/2019 before this Court on 11.10.2019 and the said case was taken up on board for hearing on 23.03.2021, meanwhile another Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.148864/2020 was also on board for hearing on the very day, which is filed by the GPA holder of the complainant. The complainant alleged that, she has never executed any GPA and the alleged GPA is a 4 created document by forged thumb impression and photo of the complainant on 13.04.2015. The accused No.2 behind the back and without knowledge of the complainant and with the assistance of accused No.6 who is the scribe of the document has prepared a forged GPA and got it signed by the accused Nos.4 and 5, who are the witnesses to the alleged GPA and got it registered through the Sub-registrar i.e. petitioner/accused No.3 by presenting the accused No.1 as executant. The accused persons have played fraud on the complainant even though knowing well that, she belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
3. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the cases of S.Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Sub Registrar, reported in ILR 1990 Kar 3740; Sri. Devaraju B. Vs. The State in Criminal 5 Petition No.4158/2014 and connected matters (DD 07.12.2016); Sri. D. Shivakumar S/o. Dodda Hanumaiah Vs. The State and another, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner has acted in the in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965. There are no allegations whatsoever in the complaint that the petitioner was aware of the falsity of the documents presented before him. In the absence of any averments to the effect that petitioner also participated in the alleged acts of criminal conspiracy and falsification of records merely on the ground that documents presented before him were registered in the course of his duties cannot be a ground for prosecution of the petitioner. The prosecution launched against the petitioner 6 being wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1, while disputing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the wake of clear allegations contained in the complaint, the matter calls for thorough investigation and hence, the impugned proceedings do not deserve to be quashed.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant has contended that, the duty of the Sub Registrar while registering the documents is to verify the parties, thereafter has to register and at the time of registration, the petitioner has colluded and created the documents and also created 7 the voter ID card and he has colluded with other accused and created forged GPA.
6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
7. A reading of the complaint indicates that, a GPA relating to an immoveable property belonging to the complainant/respondent No.2 was presented for registration before the petitioner on 13.04.2015. I have perused the copy of the GPA. Except registering the said document, there is nothing in the said document to show that the petitioner herein has identified either the executant or the GPA holder. On the other hand, the endorsement made in the document clearly discloses that the executant was identified by the witnesses by name Ashok Belligatti and Mahadev 8 Byadarkopp. The petitioner has not taken up the responsibility of identifying the executant or GPA holder. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that, the identity of the parties was known to the petitioner, no knowledge of alleged forgery or impersonation can be imputed to the petitioner. Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 casts a duty on the Registering Officer to register the documents presented before him, unless the registration thereof is objected by any person on the grounds specified therein. It reads as under:
"73. Duties of the Registe ring Office r:- (i) It shall form no part of the Registe ring Office r's duty to enquire into the validity o f a document brought to him for registratio n or to atte nd to any writte n or verbal pro test against the re gistratio n of a document, pro vide d executio n is duty 9 admitted; but in case of executants who are unable to re ad, the document shall be read o ut and if necessary e xplained to them. I f the document is in a language which they do no t understand it must be inte rpreted to the m.
(ii) If re gistratio n is objected to by any person o n any o f the following grounds, viz.,
(a) that a person appearing or about to appe ar befo re the Registe ring Office r as an executant or claimant the person he Pro fesses to be , or that he is a minor, an idio t, o r lunatic;
(b) that the instrument is forge d;
(c) that the person appe aring as a represe ntative , assignee or agent has no right to appear in that capacity;
(d) that the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by the party applying for registration;
Such objections shall be duly weighted by the Registe ring Office r and if they are substantiated, registration shall be refuse d but under sub-section (2) of 10 Section 58, if execution be admitted, registration sho uld take place e ve n if the executant re fuse d to sign the Registratio n Office r's e ndorsem ent o f admission."
8. It is not the case of the complainant that, the registration of the alleged document was objected to either by the complainant or any other person on the ground of impersonation or fraud. In this context, it may be useful to refer to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of S.Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Sub Registrar, reported in ILR 1990 KAR 3740. Considering the similar issue raised before this Court as to the duties of the Sub Registrar, the Division Bench of this Court at para 6 of the said order has observed as under:
"6. Coming to the ne xt question as to whether the Re gistrar of Socie tie s could have issue d a dire ctio n to the Sub-11
Registrar not to register a particular document, learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, 7 and 10, co uld not point out any provisio n either in the Karnataka Societies Registratio n Act, 1960 or the Rules framed thereunde r o r in the Registration Act, 1908, which authorize d the Registrar of Societies to make such a directio n. We also find no provisio n in the Registration Act, 1908 which o bliges the Sub-Registrar to act upon any such directio n and/or to investigate at the stage of registration of a document itself, the title of the party executing the document. We are, there fore of the view that if a document is pre sented for re gistration by the executant, and in doing so, the executant complie s with all the pro visions of Registration Act, 1908, it is not open to the Sub-Registrar to refuse registratio n of the document unless he exe rcises that discretio n pursuant to any provisio n in the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law or Rule having the force of law. The mere registration o f a document is by itse lf not a proof o f its validity, neither does it follow that the e xecutant had title to the prope rty, he seeks to dispose of under the document. Matte rs such as relating to title 12 have to be decide d be fore the appropriate forum . If any person is intere sted in contending that any particular do cument execute d and registe red under the Registration Act, 1908 is invalid or illegal for any reaso n whatsoe ver, he is certainly at libe rty to question the validity of the document, the title of the executant, and such other questions be fore the prope r forum in an appropriate proceeding. Similarly, if it is sought to be conte nded in the instant case that the T rust De ed has been executed in contrave ntion of the provisio n of the Karnataka S ocieties Registration Act, 1960 any person aggrieve d may challe nge the validity of the Trust Deed in a duly constitute d proceeding. The re is, howe ver, no warrant for the pro positio n that the re gistratio n o f the document itself can be preve nted by directing the Sub- Registrar not to registe r the document. We are there fore o f the view that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the direction issue d by the Registrar of Socie ties to the Sub- Registrar was competent and conseque ntly Annexure- D was also valid."13
9. From the above proposition, it follows that when the document is presented for registration, the Sub Registrar is not required to investigate into the title of the parties executing the document nor it is open to Sub Registrar to refuse registration of the document, unless the presentation thereof is objected to on the ground mentioned therein. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. D.Shivakumar Vs. The State and another [W.P.No.55725/2016 (GM-RES)] in the identical facts considering Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, has observed thus;
"7. In the case of Devaraju B. Vs. The State refe rre d supra, this Co urt has elabo rately considered the obligatio n of the Sub Registrar with regard to re gistration o f the documents and having regard to the provisio n of Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 and the law laid down by this Court in vario us other decisions refe rre d to above quashed the 14 proceedings initiated against the Sub- Registrar. Facts of the instant case bear resemblance to the facts of the above case. In the absence o f any allegatio ns imputing knowle dge to the petitio ner abo ut falsity of the document merely on the basis of registration of said document by the petitio ner in the course of his duties is wholly illegal and canno t be sustained. Fo r the above reaso ns, the pe tition dese rves to be allo wed."
The facts of the instant case are similar to the facts of the above case. In the absence of any allegation imputing knowledge of the petitioner about the falsity of the document (impersonation) merely on the basis of registration of the said document by the petitioner in the course of his duties is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 placing reliance on the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 15 Bhuvaneshwar S/o. Laxman Masamatti Vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.101394/2020, has contended that the petitioner in this case has colluded with the rest of the accused - in the performance of his duties and as a consequence fraud and public mischief ensues, could be committing an 'illegal omission' and could be an abettor to the commission of the offences and he is not active collaborator in the commission of offence alleged. On that ground, the petition seeking quashing the proceedings came to be dismissed. In the said case, the accused No.1 - Vijaylaxmi was neither the owner of the property nor she was a General Power of Attorney Holder or a Special Power of Attorney Holder to execute the sale deed on behalf of the real owner. The recitals in the sale deed is to the effect that she was having a consent letter from the complainant for executing the sale deed. In the said case, the 16 executant had no title to the property, only she has consent letter of the complainant who is the owner of the property which was registered by the petitioner of that case. The facts in the present case are different. The accused No.2 behind the back and without the knowledge of the complainant and with the assistance of accused No.6 who is the scribe of the document has prepared a forged GPA and got it signed by the accused Nos.4 and 5 who are the witnesses to the alleged GPA and got it registered through Sub Registrar i.e. petitioner/accused No.3, representing accused No.1 as executant. There is alleged impersonation in the present case. Therefore, as the facts are different, the said decision is helpful to the case of respondent No.2.
11. For the above reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.124/2021 17 registered by the Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad, are quashed, only insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-