THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1060 OF 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the
proceedings in FIR No.330 OF 2017 of Sarpavaram police
station, East Godavari district, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 384, 420, 506 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). Petitioner
herein is A.6 in the said crime.
2. Originally, the case was registered under 'man
missing'. Subsequently, section of law was altered to the
offences as stated above.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.09.2017, one
Akula Asha Latha, who is wife of 2nd respondent herein-
defacto complainant, lodged a report before Sarpavaram police stating that on 19.09.2017 at 9.30 AM, 2nd respondent-defacto complainant left the house stating that he was going to Venkateswara Swamy temple near Sarpavaram junction to bring tiffin to their children, but he did not return home so far. On the strength of the said report, the aforesaid crime No.330 of 2017 was registered as man missing and investigated into. During the course of investigation, 7 witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. Thereafter, on 21.09.2017 at 2 10.00 AM, 2nd respondent-defacto complainant, who is missing person, came to Sarpavaram police station and reported that 5 persons kidnapped him on 19.09.2017 at 10.00 AM at Sarpavaram junction near Amrutha Hospital and took him by car to the office of petitioner/A.6-Sub Registrar, Bhogapuram, Vizianagaram district, where A.6 and his staff supported A.1 and forcibly got registered Ac.18.00 cents of land in the name of A.1. Thereafter, he was taken to different places and they left him at Bhogapuram police station limits. Thereafter, on the strength of the report given by 2nd respondent-defacto complainant, Sub Inspector of Police, Sarpavaram police station altered the section of law from man missing to the offences punishable under Sections 363, 384, 420, 506 read with 34 IPC.
4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent-State and Sri Gudipati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for 2nd respondent-defacto complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Sub Registrar, and as per Rules and guidelines issued by the Government under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, he registered the document on 19.09.2017, and that except registration of the 3 documents, after the parties have signed before his office, he has not committed any act. The learned counsel took this Court to various provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and submitted that even accepting the entire allegations to be true and correct, still, the offences alleged would not be made out as against the petitioner.
It is further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner faced proceedings before the Department in respect of the offences alleged in the present crime. It is stated that the Director and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada directed the District Registrar, Vizianagaram to enquire into the accusations made in the legal notice dated 22.09.2017, and basing on the same, the District Registrar enquired into the matter and after enquiring some witnesses, the District Registrar came to the conclusion that as regards kidnapping and forcible registration of document, the Department cannot initiate any action in the absence of any evidence under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and it is for the police who is investigating into the complaint to take appropriate action against the persons whose actions are offendable, and with such observations, the petitioner herein was exonerated in the departmental enquiry. Basing on the same, the learned counsel contends that when once the petitioner is 4 exonerated in the departmental enquiry, continuation of the criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court and the same has to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for 2nd respondent-defacto complainant opposed the quash petition and took this Court to the recitals in the First Information Report, the statements of witnesses and the remand reports, and contended that the Criminal Petition is filed at a premature stage when the police are still investigating in the matter. He further contended that prima facie there are accusations as against the petitioner/A.6.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent-State opposed the quash petition, and by reading out the allegations in the remand report and other material filed along with the First Information Report, submits that prima facie material is there as against the petitioner. He further submits that the investigation is at nascent stage and unless and until police conducts investigation, it is premature to quash the proceedings at this stage, and prays to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
8. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to 5 prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. There is also no dispute with regard to the proposition that when the allegations in the report constitute a prima facie case for a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of police to conduct investigation and the same cannot be curtailed.
9. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report.
10. This Court perused the record. It is an admitted fact that on the date of the incident, 2nd respondent-defacto complainant was kidnapped and taken to the office of petitioner/A.6-Sub Registrar, Bhogapuram and a document has been executed in such a way that 2nd respondent- defacto complainant purported to have alienated the property covered under the document in favour of A.1. A perusal of the remand report shows that 2nd respondent- defacto complainant (victim) purchased Ac.25.00 cents of mango tope from one Uggina Venkatachalam, s/o. Appalaswamy of Bogapuram village, Vizianagaram district 6 for Rs.25.00 lakhs and obtained a registered sale document bearing No.4103 of 2013, dated 13.12.2018 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Bhogapuram in his name, and since then, the land is in his peaceful possession and enjoyment. It is further stated in the remand report that one Balaga Prakash Rao, a friend of younger brother of 2nd respondent- defacto complainant asked for selling of some of the landed property out of the said extent of Ac.25.00 cents and to purchase land near to proposed Airport to get profit. It is further stated in the remand report that on coming to know the same through the younger brother of 2nd respondent- defacto complainant, A.1 purchased Ac.7.00 cents of land for Rs.70.00 lakhs from 2nd respondent-defacto complainant in the name of his grandmother Bogi Gannemma, w/o. Appa Rao under registered document No.2311 of 2014, dated 11.06.2014 in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Vizianagaram, and later, A.1 asked 2nd respondent-defacto complainant to sell the remaining Ac.18.00 cents of land to him. In the mean while, younger brother of 2nd respondent-defacto complainant died on 1.11.2015 and nephew of the victim Bandi Srinivas Raghuveer, s/o. Sadananda Murthy of Hyderabad purchased Ac.17.00 cents of land from the person from whom 2nd respondent-defacto complainant purchased Ac.25.00 cents and obtained registered sale deed on the 7 same day, and the said land is adjacent to the land of 2nd respondent-defacto complainant. It is further stated in the remand report that on 20.2.2016, 2nd respondent- defacto complainant executed G.P.A. in favour of his nephew Bandi Srinivasa Raghu Veer for the remaining Ac.18.00 cents of land vide document bearing No.813 of 2016, and on coming to know of the same, A.1 demanded 2nd respondent-defacto complainant to sell the said land to him otherwise he would kill him or file a case under the SC/ST Act. As per preplan, A.1 kidnapped 2nd respondent-defacto complainant on 19.09.2017, took him to the office of the Sub Registrar, Bhogapuram, threatened him that if he does not put signatures as directed by the petitioner/A.6, some persons would kill his wife and children, who were already kidnapped. It is also stated that 2nd respondent-defacto complainant informed the person who is in white dress and was obtaining eyerish with an electronic device, that A.1 kidnapped him and his unwillingness to register the land admeasuring Ac.18.00 cents. It is further alleged that when questioned the said person about whereabouts of petitioner/A.6, the latter came forward from the other staff and insisted the staff for speedy registration of the documents, and he also forcibly obtained thumb impressions of 2nd respondent-defacto complainant on concerned documents. The accused 8 threatened to kill 2nd respondent-defacto complainant when he was causing hurdle to them. 2nd respondent-defacto complainant also informed petitioner/A.6 about the accused not paying money to him, and after registration of the documents, petitioner/A.6 and A.1 hugged each other, and thereafter, the accused have taken 2nd respondent- defacto complainant from there.
11. Prima facie the accusations made as against the petitioner show that he has exceeded in discharge of his official duties. A perusal of the allegations in the remand report would go to show the high-handedness of the petitioner/A.6 in getting the documents registered in favour of A.1. In normal circumstances, a responsible Sub Registrar could have avoided registering the document or else he could have informed the police with regard to the circumstances that are being taken place in his office. Despite 2nd respondent-defacto complainant informing the petitioner/A.6 that no amount has been paid to him and he has been forcibly brought to the office of the Sub Registrar, the petitioner/A.6 had shown more anxiety in completing the registration of the document in favour of A.1, forcing, 2nd respondent-defacto complainant to sign on the papers and hugged A.1, which prima facie goes to show that 9 petitioner/A.6 is in hand in glove with A.1 and other accused in completing the registration.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in P.V.G.K.S. Sastry v. State of A.P. and another1. The said judgment is in respect of Sub Registrar registering deed of cancellation of the registered sale agreement unilaterally executed and presented by the vendor alone, and such registration not resulting in any injury to vendee. While considering Section 81 of the Registration Act, 1908, it is held that entertaining registration of deed of cancellation of registered sale agreement presented by the vendor alone before the Sub Registrar for registration is not a ground to prosecute the Sub Registrar since he cannot be said to have acted illegally when the said deed of cancellation was strictly in accordance with Schedule I-A of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down in the said judgment. But, in the present case, the facts and circumstances would go to show that petitioner/A.6 behaved high-handedly and the recitals of the remand report show that he was showing enthusiasm in getting the document registered. 2nd respondent-defacto complainant informed the petitioner/A.6 that no amount has been paid to him. The petitioner/A.6 had shown concern in completing the registration of the documents in favour of 1 2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 415 (AP) 10 A.1 forcing 2nd respondent-defacto complainant to sign on the papers and after completion of registration, petitioner hugged A.1. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
13. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent relied on Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of one Pidugu Sheshagiri Rao (L.W.13), Document Writer, which is extracted hereunder.
11
A perusal of the above said statement shows that the petitioner was showing his interest in getting the document registered and he further directed the above witness to sign the document. It further shows that the document has been executed and thereafter the Document Writer was directed to sign on the document. A reading of the said statement shows that the petitioner/A.6, in connivance of A.1, intended to get the document executed as early as possible. A reading of the remand report further shows that there were calls made between the petitioner and A.1. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that entire facts will be culled out only when the investigation is allowed to proceed further. Then only, police would be in a position 12 to take out the entire call data and examine the same. At this stage, this Court comes to a conclusion that prima facie there is material as against the petitioner where the impugned proceedings have to continue.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & another,2 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in case of exoneration, however, on merits, where the allegations found to be not sustainable at all and the accused held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts cannot be allowed to continue, on underlying principle of higher standard of proof in criminal cases. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that in case of similar in nature, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue.
15. As regards exoneration of the petitioner/A.6 in departmental enquiry, in the said enquiry, neither the call data nor the statement of aforesaid witness Pidugu Seshagiri Rao (L.W.13) seems to have been produced before the authorities. It would be appropriate if the police are allowed to investigate into the case as it appears to be a sensitive case. This Court feels that truth or otherwise of 2 (2020) 9 SCC 636 13 the said accusations has to be culled out in the investigation by police. As there are prima facie accusations, this Court feels that it is too premature stage where this Court can interfere to quash the impugned proceedings.
16. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY .04.2022.
DRK 14 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1060 OF 2021 .04.2022 DRK