THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14063 OF 2018
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.155 of 2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla. The petitioner is arrayed as A.6 in the said case.
2. 2nd respondent-defacto complainant presented a private complaint before the learned Magistrate and the same was referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the same, a case in crime No.177 of 2013 of Piduguralla police station, Guntur district was registered by police. After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 425, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC against A.1 to A.5 and under Section 409 IPC against the petitioner, who is A.6.
3. The allegations in the charge sheet, in brief, may be stated as follows.
A.4 and A.5 were in enjoyment of vacant site in an extent of Ac.0.57 cents in D.No.122/1B/5B vide document no.1208 of 1993, dated 05.04.1993 of S.R.O., Piduguralla. Adjacent to it, another vacant poromboke site in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in D.No.122/1B/1C1 assigned to A.3 by former Tahsildar, Piduguralla on 19.03.1994 vide D.K.No.08/1403 /Fasali, D-form-7 with certain conditions. After lapse of 15 years, A.3 conspired together with petitioner/A.6 on the plea 2 that as per patta condition, she paid an amount of Rs.200/- vide challan No.447 at Sub Treasury Office, Piduguralla. Without proper verification, petitioner/A.6 voluntarily issued a certificate vide R.C.No.103/2009-A, and basing on that, A.3 sold away Ac.0.40 cents of site to A.4 and A.5 on 07.03.2009 vide document No.1071/2009 after verifying genuineness by the S.R.O. Later, A.4 and A.5 merged the said site of Ac.0.57 cents in survey Nos. 122/1B/5B and got possessed total extent of Ac.0.97 cents and appointed A.1 and A.2 as G.P.As. on behalf of them vide document NO.2679/2009, dated 02.06.2009 of S.R.O., Piduguralla. Thereafter, A.1 and A.2 made entire site in an extent of Ac.0.97 cents into residential house plots and sold away to some of the witnesses by executing registered sale deed in different dates in the year 2009. On 16.11.2009, 2nd respondent-defacto complainant purchased a plot from L.W.9-K.Sambasiva Rao for Rs.11,20,000/- and in the year 2013, he tried to get registered sale deed of the above house plot and learnt that it was not liable for registration as it was assigned one. On 18.05.2013, when 2nd respondent-defacto complainant asked said L.W.9-K.Sambasiva Rao about its non-registration, the latter stated that he purchased the same from A.1 and A.2. When he questioned A.1 and A.2 about the same, they abused him in filthy language, threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.
3
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for 1 st respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even accepting the entire accusations made as against the petitioner/A.6 as true, no prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC is made out, for the reason that the accusation as against the petitioner/A.6 is that he issued a Certificate in R.C.No.103/2009-A, and apart from the same, there is absolutely no other accusation against the petitioner/A.6.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the quash petition stating that the accusation has been made as against the petitioner/A.6 and the defences that are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are disputed questions of fact and the same have to be decided in the course of trial.
7. This Court perused the record. The only accusation that has been made as against the petitioner/A.6 is that without proper verification, the petitioner has voluntarily issued a Certificate R.C.No.103/2009-A, and basing on the said certificate, A.3 sold away Ac.0.40 cents of land to A.4 and A.5 on 07.03.2009, after verifying the authenticity of the document by the Sub Registrar's Office. The petitioner/A.6, knowing pretty well, has issued the certificate and by virtue of the same, A.3 sold away the said 4 property basing on the certificate issued by the petitioner herein.
8. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. go to show that the petitioner issued a written certificate and from the said certificate, it is found that the land which has been given as a patta vide D.K.No.08/1403/Fasali is not an assigned land and A.3 was having absolute rights over the property. In respect of the said land, the petitioner issued NOC and the same land was sold the 2nd respondent/ complainant.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment in Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of A.P.1. Basing on the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a public servant or a banker or an agent should have been entrusted with the property and the entrustment of the property should have been converted for personal use, then only the accused must have committed criminal breach of trust, but in respect of the act committed by the petitioner/A.6, there is absolutely no accusation in the charge sheet except a vague and bald allegation that the petitioner issued the certificate.
He further contended that the petitioner was only discharging his official duties and if any violation takes place in discharge of his official duties, it is essential that sanction has to be obtained, but no sanction has been obtained at the time of filing the charge sheet as against the petitioner. 1 AIR 2012 SC 3242 5
10. Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. reads as follows: "197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants. (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:
Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted." No doubt, the petitioner was working as Tahsildar, Piduguralla at the relevant point of time. Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required when the alleged acts have been committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. The acts of the petitioner/A.6 in issuing the fake certificate in respect of the land given as patta vide D.K.No.08/1403 /Fasali, D-form- 7 is not a part of the official duty of the petitioner. When 2 nd respondent/complainant appealed to the District Collector, Guntur vide Public Redressal Complaint, the Tahsildar, 6 Piduguralla replied to the complaint of the District Collector, vide Rc.No.384/1B-A, dated 04.05.2013 stating that a fake certificate was created as if it was issued by the office of the Tahsildar, Piduguralla in the year 2009, as if the land is not an assigned land. By any stretch of imagination, the alleged acts committed by the petitioner/A.6 would not come within the purview of discharge of his official duties. This Court feels that the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. cannot be claimed by the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems that no valid legal ground has been raised warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceedings against the petitioner/A.6.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY .04.2022 DRK 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.14063 OF 2018 .04.2022 DRK