Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 20 April, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR No. 796/2016
(Rajkumar Upadhyay Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior, Dated: 20/4/2018
Shri R.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Shri V.K.
Agrawal, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri B.P.S. Chouhan, Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. 1/State.
Shri Rajnish Sharma with Shri Ravi Vallabh Tripathi, Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 21/6/2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in ST No. 257/2013 by which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been discharged for an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 424, 120-B and 182 of IPC.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that Survey Nos. 783/3, 783/4, 784/3, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 820/2 and 824/1, total area 8.224 hectare situated in village Manpur, Tehsil and District Gwalior is claimed to be in the ownership of the complainant. It is alleged that co-accused Lakhan, by impersonating himself to be the complainant, executed a sale deed in favor of Satish Kumar Jain, Director, Kim Infrastructure and Developers Limited on 21/5/2010 and co-accused Prithviraj as well as co-accused Shailendra impersonated themselves as Gopal Singh S/o Bhagirath and attested the sale deed. Similarly, co-accused Janki Lal had prepared a forged certificate of residence of the complainant and handed over to co-accused Lakhan which was used by way of I.D. proof at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was alleged that the contents of the sale 2 deed were drafted by respondent No. 2 whereas the sale deed was registered by respondent No. 3.
The trial Court, after hearing the parties, discharged respondents No. 2 and 3 by holding that respondent No. 2 is an advocate and had prepared the contents of the sale deed, but he did not identify anybody. Since respondent No. 2 is an advocate by profession, then it is his duty to draft the document as per the instructions of the clients and if in discharge of his professional duties, respondent No. 2 had drafted a sale deed, then it cannot be said that he committed any offence. Similarly, so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, he was posted as Sub-Registrar. Whenever a document is produced for registration, then it is the statutory duty of the Sub-Registrar to execute the same if the said document is in accordance with law. It is clear from the prosecution case itself that the identification proofs were submitted for the identification of the parties. Thus, under these circumstances, when the ID proofs are produced before the Sub-Registrar and if on the basis of the said ID proofs, he gets himself satisfied about the identification of the parties, then it cannot be said that respondent No. 3 did not act in good faith. It is not the requirement of law that the Sub-Registrar, before registering the sale deed, is also under obligation to verify the correctness and genuineness of the ID proofs.
Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit any mistake in discharging respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Further, during arguments, it was submitted by the 3 counsel for the parties that the trial has already come to an end and some of the co-accused persons had been convicted.
Be that as it may.
As the prosecution has failed to bring any sufficient evidence on record warranting framing of charge against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit any mistake by discharging respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by order dated 21/6/2016 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in ST No. 257/2013.
Accordingly, the order dated 21/6/2016 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in ST No. 257/2013 is affirmed.
The revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge AKS Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR Date: 2018.04.23 10:25:54 +05'30'