Karnataka High Court
T. V. Jayaprakash vs State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2017
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
Crl.P. No. 8059/2016
C/w
Crl.P. Nos. 8057, 8058, 8060, 8061, 8062, 8063, 8064, 8065,
8066, 8067, 8068, 8069, 8070, 8071, 8072, 8073, 8074, 8075.
8076, 8077 & 8078 OF 2016,
BETWEEN:
T.V. Jayaprakash, 57 years,
S/o Late K.T. Venkataramaiah,
Occ: Senior Sub-Registrar,
Kengeri, R/at No. 975, 2nd Main,
3rd Cross, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
--- Common Petitioner
(By Sri. Sathish T.S., Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Madivala Police,
Bangalore City,
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore - 560001.
2(a) Adarsh R Iyer,
Co-President,
Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP),
No.F-1401, Brigade Gateway,
Malleshwaram West,
2
Bangalore - 560 055.
2(b) Sri. Prakash Babu B.K.,
S/o Late B.N. Krishnappa,
Aged about 41 years,
Co-President of
"Janadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath" (JSP),
No. 42/1, 8th Cross,
6th Main, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560005.
-----Common Respondents
(By Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, Addl.SPP for R1.
Sri. Adarsh R. Iyer - R2(A) - party - in - person.
Sri. Prakash Babu B.K., - R2(B) - party - in - person)
These Criminal Petitions are filed U/s. 482 of CR.P.C.
praying to quash the FIR in Cr. Nos. 1029/2016, 1014/2016,
1028/2016, 1030/2016, 1031/2016, 1032/2016,
1033/2016, 1034/2016, 1035/2016, 1039/2016,
1040/2016, 1041/2016, 1042/2016, 1044/2016,
1045/2016, 1046/2016, 1050/2016, 1051/2016,
1052/2016, 1053/2016, 1054/2016, 1055/2016 respectively
filed by the Respondent No.2 pending on the file of III
A.C.M.M., Bangalore registered by the respondent No.1 -
Madivala Police, Bangalore, for the offences p/u/s 120 (B),
468, 471 of IPC as against the present petitioner-Accused
No.3.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for admission this
day, the court made the following:
-
COMMON ORDER
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. Respondent 3 No.2(a) and (b) have made their submissions as parties in person.
2. All these petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Cr. Nos. 1029/2016, 1014/2016, 1028/2016, 1030/2016, 1031/2016, 1032/2016, 1033/2016, 1034/2016, 1035/2016, 1039/2016, 1040/2016, 1041/2016, 1042/2016, 1044/2016, 1045/2016, 1046/2016, 1050/2016, 1051/2016, 1052/2016, 1053/2016, 1054/2016, 1055/2016 respectively registered by the Madivala police station, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Section 120(B), 468, 471 of IPC in so far as the petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned.
3. Respondent No.2 is the Co-President of Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath-NGO. He lodged a report before the respondent No.1 on 22.09.2016. The said report reads as under:
During the registration of the above sale deed, the documents that is necessary for the registration of 4 a site such as form 9,11 and certificate for these forms are alleged to be forged as is evident from the fact that the seal put on the forms 9 and 11 is the seal of "¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw D£ÉÃPÀ ï" and "PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀðºÀuÁ¢üPÁj vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw D£ÉÃPÀ ï" whereas the site is located at "¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ". This clearly displays the fraud and forgery involved in the entire transaction in connivance with the then concerned Senior Sub-Registrar, Mr.T.V. Jayaprakash who signed the registered sale deed and rendered a stamp of legislation of this fraudulent transaction. We allege a criminal conspiracy u/s 120B of IPC between Mr.T.V.Jayaprakash, the then senior Sub- Registrar and the members mentioned in the para
1)-a to c) in committing the purported forgery and fraud in the above said registration.
4. Based on the said report, the respondent No.1 registered FIR in Cr. Nos. 1029/2016, 1014/2016, 1028/2016, 1030/2016, 1031/2016, 1032/2016, 1033/2016, 1034/2016, 1035/2016, 1039/2016, 1040/2016, 1041/2016, 1042/2016, 1044/2016, 1045/2016, 1046/2016, 1050/2016, 1051/2016, 1052/2016, 1053/2016, 1054/2016, 1055/2016 respectively against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable 5 under Section 120(B), 468, 471 of IPC. The petitioner herein is shown as accused No.3 in all the above FIRs.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was a Senior Sub-Registrar of BTM Layout, Sub-Registrar Office, Bangalore at the relevant point of time. The sum and substance of the accusation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner registered as many as 30 sale deeds in respect of the various sites formed in Sy.No. 105 of Doddathoguru Village, Beguru Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk within the Bangalore Urban District. At the time of registration of the sale deeds, the executants/buyers namely Accused No.1 and 2 produced khata purported to be relating to the land bearing Sy.No. 105 of Doddathoguru Village. According to the complainants, this khata is a forged document and this fact has been ascertained by obtaining the communication and other materials through RTI, making it evident that the document produced along with the sale deeds were forged documents.
6
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no allegations whatsoever in the entire complaint making out the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that except registering the documents, the petitioner herein is not involved in the alleged transactions and therefore registration of the case against the petitioner is malafide, vexatious and abuse of the process of law. The learned counsel has referred to Rule 73 of Karnataka Registration,1965 which reads as follows:
Duties of Registering Officer:-
i. It shall form no part of the Registering Officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document. Provided execution is duly admitted: but in case of executants who are unable to read, the document shall be read out and if necessary explained to them. If the document is in a language which they do not understand it must be interpreted to them.7
ii. If registration is objected to by any person on any of the following grounds, viz.,
(a) that a person appearing or about to appear before the Registering Officer as an executant or claimant the person he professes to be, or that he is a minor, an idiot, or lunatic:
(b) that the instrument is forged;
(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign 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 weighed by the Registering Officer and if they are substantiated, registration shall be refused, but under sub- section(2) of section 58, if execution be admitted, registration should take place even if the executant refuses to sign the Registering Officer's endorsement.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the Sub-Registrar is not duty bound to enquire into the validity of a document brought before him for registration. He is not required to verify the genuineness and authenticity of the khata and other forms produced along with the document 8 meant for registration. The allegations made against the petitioner have no basis whatsoever and therefore the implication of the petitioner in the alleged offences is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.
8. The learned counsel further submits that if for any reason, the documents produced along with sale deeds tendered for registration are found to be invalid, bogus and forged, the petitioner cannot be held guilty unless it is pointed out that with the said documents are got up with the knowledge and connivance with the executants/buyers of the property. There being no such allegations, there is absolutely no reason or justification for the complainant to involve the name of the petitioner in the alleged transaction.
9. The learned Additional SPP submits that the Sy.No. 105 of Doddathoguru Village, is a government land and under the said circumstance, the petitioner should not have registered the sale deeds in respect of Government Land. Further the Addl. SPP points out that allegations directed 9 against the petitioner that he was a party to the conspiracy and the large number of document registered by him in a short span of time without complying with the legal requirement is itself sufficient to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against him. Therefore the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.
10. The 2nd respondent - party in person has referred to the allegations made in the complaint and has pointed out that in the complaint clear allegations are made against the Registrar, alleging that he was a party to the criminal conspiracy and he has colluded with the land grabbing mafia. In support of his arguments, 2nd respondent has referred to the circular issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 06.04.2009 which required the Sub-Registrar to ensure that the documents tendered for registration were accompanied with all the necessary certificates detailed therein. Schedule-I of the notification required that in case, property is situated within the limits of Gram Panchayath, order of conversion 10 along with *Form Nos.9 and 11 issued by Gram Panchayath is necessarily required to be enclosed. But in the instant case without ensuring the compliance of any of these legal requirements the petitioner has proceeded with the registration and that too in respect of as many as 30 documents which clearly indicate that he is hand in glove with the beneficiaries of the sale transactions registered by him. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint coupled with the documents produced by them along with objection statement clearly establish the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged transactions making out the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 468, 471 of IPC.
11. Reporting the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Circular referred to by the 2nd respondent has been quashed by the Division Bench of this High Court in W.P. 18939/09 connected with W.P.14050/2012 dated 18.03.2016. However, the 2nd respondent submits that the aforesaid orders are stayed in *Corrected vide court order dated 02.06.2017 11 S.L.P.15837/2016 as a result, the circular in question is in operation. Further, he submits that at the relevant time of the registration of the documents, the circular was in force and the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No.18939 c/w W.P.No.14050/12 does not have any retrospective operation.
12. Considering the rival contentions urged at the Bar and the averments made in the petition and the contentions taken up in the statement of objection filed by the 2nd respondent, the question that arises for consideration is:-
"Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein are false and baseless and abuse of process of law?"
13. As already stated above, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner herein registered the documents in-question. The 2nd respondent has made specific allegations that at the time of registration, bogus and forged khata were produced before the registering authority. In the objection statement, the 2nd respondent has produced some 12 more documents to show that there are reliable material to show that the khata produced before the Sub-Registrar were forged.
14. The materials produced by the 2nd respondent clearly indicate that the subject matter of the sale deeds registered by the petitioner is a Government land. In the complaint, there are specific allegations that the Sub- Registrar colluded with the purported land owners and registered the sale deeds so as to confer on them title in respect of the Government land. As rightly pointed out by the Addl.SPP and the 2nd respondent, the allegations do not per- se pertain to the validity and legality of the registered documents, rather the allegations are that the petitioner registered the documents in respect of the Government land on the basis of forged documents. As there are clear allegations that the *petitioner also was a party to the conspiracy between the vendors and the beneficiaries thereof, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the allegations made *Corrected vide court order dated 02.06.2017 13 against the Sub-Registrar are without any basis. That apart, the documents produced by the 2nd respondent along with objection statement clearly indicate that there are sufficient materials to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR registered against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the law.
15. It is well settled that the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy. In the instant case, having regard to the gravity of the charges leveled against the petitioner and the other accused, the magnitude of the offences and the prima facie material produced before the Court, I am of the view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be quashed. Hence, petitions are dismissed at the admission stage.
14
In view of this order, the applications filed by the *respondent No.1 for vacating the stay do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said applications are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS *Corrected vide court order dated 02.06.2017