Bombay High Court
Bajirao S/O Shahu Gaikwad vs Mohan Namdeo Yedhe on 21 March, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Cri.Appln. No. 7057/16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7057 OF 2017
Bajirao s/o. Shahu Gaikwad,
Age 60 years, Occu. Pensioner,
R/o. Shirur, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Pune. ....Applicant.
Versus
Mohan Namdeo Yedhe,
Age 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Palaspimpri, Tq. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Respondent.
Mr. S.D. Kotkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. P.R. Nangare, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : March 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,
heard both the sides for final disposal.
2) Present proceeding is filed by one retired Sub
Registrar, who was appointed under Indian Registration Act in
the Office of Registrar, Tahsil Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. Both
the sides are heard.
3) One Mohan Yedhe has filed private complaint for
offences punishable under sections 218, 420, 465, 468, 471, 34
Cri.Appln. No. 7057/16
of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicant and
others. It is the contention of the complainant that the
agricultural land Gat No. 74 from Kalaspimpri, Tahsil Pathardi
was owned by his grand-father and his grand-father died in the
year 1958 and after the death of his grand-father, the land came
to Namdev, Devrao, Sahebrao and Bapurao. Namdev was the
father of complainant. It is contended that Devrao died in the
year 1969.
4) It is the case of complainant that Ramkisan son of
Sahebrao knew that even after death of Devrao, the land was
standing in the name of Devrao and with the help of other
accused, he presented another person as Devrao and executed
the sale deed in respect of the land which was standing in the
name of Devrao on 3.4.2002 and the sale deed was executed in
favour of accused No. 1 - Sou. Ashabai Sitaram Choudhary.
Allegations are made that the other accused knew that Devrao
was not there, but they signed on the documents to identify
Devrao as witnesses on execution. Allegations are made that
present applicant, who is shown as accused No. 7 and who was
working as Sub Registrar ought to have been taken proper care
and probably, he joined hands with the main accused and so, he
also has committed the offences of aforesaid nature.
Cri.Appln. No. 7057/16
5) The learned counsel for applicant submitted that the
transaction was registered in April 2002 and at that time, only on
the basis of identification done by the persons of the executing
party, the Sub Registrar was expected to accept the
identification. The learned counsel for applicant produced on the
record the circular issued by the Inspector General of
Registration, Department of Revenue, Government of NCT of
Delhi dated 12.11.2014 showing that first time, due to this
circular steps were taken and precautions were expected to be
taken to see that the party executing the document is the same
and relevant record was necessary for registration. The
documents like Adhar Card, Enrollment Slip are made
compulsory before accepting the documents for registration.
6) The learned counsel for respondent, original
complainant submitted that in the year 2002 also, it was
necessary for Sub Registrar to take proper steps to see that the
executing party was the same. He submitted that atleast the
voters list ought to have been perused by the Sub Registrar to
ascertain that Devrao was alive. This submission is not at all
acceptable as there is no such provision in Indian Registration
Act. Unfortunately, in the past there were no such provisions and
Cri.Appln. No. 7057/16
there were no such precautionary measures and due to that,
many false documents were executed. As such procedure was
not there at that time, this Court holds that it is not desirable to
allow the proceeding filed against the present applicant to go on.
7) In the result, the application is allowed. The
proceeding to the extent of the present applicant is hereby
quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
