Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
E. Satyanarayana, Chittoor Dt. vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd 2 Othrs on 16 August, 2019
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11277 OF 2014
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") by the petitioner/accused No.7 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.138 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - cum - Junior Civil Judge, Nagari, Chittoor District, which was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 417, 420, 166-A, 199 read with 107 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.").
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nagari, for various offences referred supra making serious allegations against accused Nos.1 to 6 and the role attributed to the petitioner/accused No.7 is that he registered the document presented before him by the other accused even without insisting for Pattadar passbook and title deed. Therefore, the petitioner herein joined hands with the other accused and committed offence punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. in execution of document by the other accused, which constitute offence punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of I.P.C.
The Magistrate took the case on file after following necessary procedure. The present petition is filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint and the statements recorded by the Magistrate are silent as to the intention of the petitioner and that the petitioner is not required to insist the parties to produce Pattadar passbook and title deed in view of a memo No.G1/17480/96 dated 18.04.2011, consequently, registration of document without insisting Pattadar passbook and title deed does MSM,J Crl.P_11277_2014 2 not constitute an offence and requested to allow the petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions urged in the petition drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment of Apex Court in "Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar1" to contend that when the scribe and attestor are not liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 417, 420, 166-A, 199 of I.P.C., the Sub-Registrar cannot be prosecuted for the same offence being an officer, who registered the document on presentation while discharging his duties as public servant and requested to allow the petition.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 while referring to paragraph No.11 of the complaint contended that no sanction is necessary to prosecute the petitioner/accused No.7 as he committed the offence with open eyes and that the said land is in the name of complainant No.1 but not in the name of alleged executant, and the same is subject matter of O.S.No.94 of 2014 pending before the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati for partition of the joint family properties and prayed to dismiss the petition.
If the said contention is accepted, no sanction is required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute the petitioner, but while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Court has to examine whether the allegations made in the complaint would constitute offence punishable under any penal law.
Turning to the facts of the present case, the allegations made against the petitioner is that he registered the document presented by accused No.1 though the subject land is not belonging to accused 1 (2009) 8 SCC 751 MSM,J Crl.P_11277_2014 3 No.1. The duty of the Registrar is to register the document presented before him if it is otherwise in order and he is not expected to know who is the real owner of the property. But the procedure for production of pattadar passbook and title deed wad dispensed with by memo No.G1/17480/96 dated 18.04.2011. Therefore, without insisting for production of Pattadar passbook and title deed in pursuance of the above said memo, the petitioner registered the document and such registration would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 107 and 120-B of I.P.C.
In "Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar" (referred supra) the Apex Court while considering the identical question held that the attestor is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence committed by the prime accused. The Registrar is in a better position than attestor and scribe. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. since Registrar registered the document being a public servant while discharging his duties without insisting for production of Pattadar passbook and title deeds in pursuance of the Memo No.G1/17480/96 dated 18.04.2011. Therefore, I find no prima facie material against the petitioner to constitute offence punishable under Sections 107 and 120-B of I.P.C.
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deals with inherent powers of High Court, it reads as follows:
482. Saving of inherent power of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
In view of the powers vested with this Court by Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it is apposite to advert to the law laid down by the Apex MSM,J Crl.P_11277_2014 4 Court to exercise power to quash F.I.R. or any other proceedings.
In "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2" the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.2
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 MSM,J Crl.P_11277_2014 5 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
According to guideline No.1, if the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Applying the said principle to the present facts of the case, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings.
In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.7 in C.C.No.138 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - cum - Junior Civil Judge, Nagari, Chittoor District are hereby quashed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 16.08.2019 Ksp