Pandailapalli Rama Krishna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1754 AP

     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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 415 (AP)

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.

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

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

(2020) 9 SCC 636

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

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1060 OF 2021

.04.2022 DRK