[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Popatrao Ramchandra Bhoi vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 23 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:13805-DB
1/10 APL-873-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 873 OF 2025
1. Popatrao S/o. Ramchandra Bhoi,
Age-58 years, Occ - Service,
R/o. Building No. B-3, Nikhil Garden,
1st Floor, Manikbagh, Sinhagad Rad,
Pune - 411 041. ....Applicant.
Versus.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through -
The Police Inspector,
Wagholi Police Station.
Dist. Pune.
2. Aparna Yashpal Varma,
Age - 58 years, Occu - Service,
R/o. C-803, 8th Floor, Hill Chrust,
J.V.L.R.,
Infront of Shephs, Gate No. 3, Andheri
(East),
Mumbai. ....Respondents.
Ms. Priya Gondhalekar a/w Stavan Telgote, learned Advocates
for Applicant.
Mr. Aditya Mithe a/w Ms. Esha Joshi, learned Advocates for
the Respondent No. 2.
Arjun
::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2026 20:33:52 :::
2/10 APL-873-2025.doc
Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent -
State.
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date : 23rd March, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. Priya Gondhalekar, learned advocate for the
Applicant, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned advocate for the
Respondent No. 1-State and Mr. Aditya Mithe, learned advocate
for Respondent No. 2.
2. This Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( hereafter "BNSS") seeks to
quash the FIR bearing No. 0257 dated 12.06.2025, registered
with Wagholi Police Station, Pune, for offences punishable under
Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 201, and 82 of
Bhartiya Nyay Sahita 2023 (hereafter "BNS") of the Registration
Act, 1908 (hereafter "impugned FIR").
3. Material facts relevant to the adjudication of this
Application, as divulged from the Application, show that the
Applicant, a Senior Revenue Officer working as Sub-Registrar
(Class II) No. 20 at the Registry Office in Haveli, Pune, is listed
Arjun
3/10 APL-873-2025.doc
as Accused No. 16 in the impugned FIR. The impugned FIR was
registered based on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2,
alleging that a piece of land measuring 4H at Gat No. 1276/38
(formerly Gat No. 2262/4) at Wagholi, Pune (hereafter "said
property"), was fraudulently involved in an Agreement for Sale
dated 03.01.2025 (hereafter "said Agreement"), registered in
the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Registry Office in Haveli, Pune.
In the said Agreement, Noel Joseph Das, Jyoti Noel Das, Rahun
Noel Das, Roshni Noel Das, Jackson Joseph Das, and Rohit
Jackson Das signed as vendors, while Girish Ramchandra Kamte,
Hemant Kamte, Santosh Shetty, Aditya Ghavare, and Amol
Bhumkar signed as vendees. Alleging collusion between the
Applicant in the capacity of Sub-Registrar and the other accused,
it is claimed that all the accused committed the offence referred
to in the impugned FIR.
4. The aggrieved Applicant (Accused No. 16) in the
impugned FIR is before this Court.
5. Ms. Priya Gondhalekar, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, submits that all allegations in the impugned FIR
relate to a transaction involving the purchase and sale of
property between Noel Joseph Das, Jyoti Noel Das, Rahun Noel
Arjun
4/10 APL-873-2025.doc
Das, Roshni Noel Das, Jackson Joseph Das, and Rohit Jackson
Das (as Vendors), and Girish Ramchandra Kamte, Hemant
Kamte, Santosh Shetty, Aditya Ghavare, and Amol Bhumkar(as
Vendees). She submits that the impugned FIR alleges that the
vendors in the said Agreement did not hold title to the property,
therefore, according to Respondent No. 2, they could not have
entered into the said Agreement. She states that the allegations
indicate the property, valued at Rs. 90 crores, was sold by the
vendors to the vendees for Rs. 8.16 crores. She claims that the
allegations against the Applicant involve assisting the accused by
registering the said Agreement at an undervalued rate. She
argues that, under Rule 44 of the Maharashtra Registration
Rules, the Sub-Registrar is not authorized to verify the validity of
the documents presented. Instead, the Sub-Registrar's role is
limited to verifying whether the parties have paid the
appropriate stamp duty and registration fee based on the
property's valuation provided to the Sub-Registrar. She submits
that, according to the zone certificate attached to the said
Agreement, the land was in an Agriculture No Development
Zone, and, as shown on the website www.igrmaharashtra.gov.in,
the property's valuation was 8.06 crore. Therefore, stamp duty
and registration fees were calculated based on the 2022-2023
Arjun
5/10 APL-873-2025.doc
ready reckoner rates. She disputes the amount of the property
claimed by Respondent No.2. She emphasizes that the only
allegations against the Applicant are of assisting the parties by
registering the said Agreement at a lower stamp duty rate. She
concludes that the Applicant fulfilled his duties by lawfully
registering the Agreement for Sale. She submits that no offence
of a cognizable nature is made out against the Applicant.
6. Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent No. 1,
submits that upon receiving the complaint from Respondent No.
2, the impugned FIR was registered. He states that, besides the
Applicant, charge sheet has been filed against the other accused
in the crime.
7. Mr. Aditya Mithe, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2,
in addition to oral arguments, has tendered a short note of
arguments. He submits that Respondent No. 2 is the absolute
owner of the said property and that her name is reflected in the
7/12 extract. He submits that the said property is subject to
repeated impersonation frauds involving five women falsely
claiming to be "Aparna Yashpal Varma". He submits that, due to
this illegal activity, Respondent No. 2 was compelled to file a
Civil Suit. He submits that Noel Joseph Das asserted that
Arjun
6/10 APL-873-2025.doc
Respondent No. 2 sold the said property to him by way of a sale
deed dated 08.08.1991. Using this Sale Deed, Noel Das and
others executed and registered the said Agreement with Girish
Ramchandra Kamte, which was registered by the Applicant, as
the Sub Registrar. He contends that the Sale Deed dated
8.08.1991, on which Noel Das claims the title, is forged and has
been inserted into the records of the Sub-Registrar. He further
asserts that the said Agreement undervalues the property. He
claims that the Applicant, by ignoring the issue of title and the
entries in the 7/12 extract, registered the said Agreement. He
submits that if the Applicant had correctly valued the said
property, there would have been a lower likelihood of the said
Agreement being executed by the vendor and vendees to the
said Agreement.
8. Heard arguments. Perused records.
9. The allegations in the impugned FIR against the Applicant
herein are as follows:-
तसे च सदर माझे जागे बाबत लि ज पें डं सी लिद. 07/02/2023
रोजी नोंदणीकृत असताना व आम्ही नोंदणी महालिनरीक्षक,
महाराष्ट् र राज्य यांना सदर लिमळकतीचे व्यवहार होवु नये अशा
आशयाचे लिद. 30/08/2024 रोजी अन्वये पञ लिद े असताना
दे खी सह दुय्यम लिनबं धक, हवे ी क् र. 20 यांनी कमी मु दर् ांक
शु ल्कामध्ये हे मंत कामठे व दे व इतर यांना मदत करण्याचे
Arjun
7/10 APL-873-2025.doc
करण्याचे उददे शाने चु कीच्या पध्दतीने साठे खत क् र. 184/2025
अन्वये दस्त नोंदणी के ी आहे .
English translation of the above paragraph provided by Ms.
Gondhalekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, reads as
follows:-
So also even though the Lis pendense hs been registered on
07/02/2023 and we had sent correspondence to the
Inspector General of Registration, Maharashtra State dated
30/08/2024 stating no transaction pertaining to the said
property to take place, the Sub-Registrar, Haveli No. 20
with the intention to help Hemant Kamte and Ors.,
wrongfully executed the Agreement for Sale, No. 184 of
2025 by valuing the said Instrument at lower stamp duty.
10. Ms. Priya Gondhalekar submits that, apart from the
aforementioned allegation attributed to the Applicant in the
impugned FIR, there are no other allegations. The said
contention of Ms. Priya Gondhalekar is not contested by Mr.
Aditya Mithe, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Thus, the
role assigned to the Applicant in the impugned FIR is to register
the said Agreement without properly valuing the said property
as required.
11. The core argument of Mr. Aditya Mithe is that, by not
verifying the title of the vendor of the said property and
undervaluing the instrument for stamp duty and registration fee
purposes, the Applicant is guilty of the offences mentioned in
the impugned FIR. Mr Aditya Mithe emphasized that the
Arjun
8/10 APL-873-2025.doc
Applicant, while discharging his duties as Sub-Registrar, could
not have registered the said Agreement without verifying and
confirming the vendors' title.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K. Gopi Vs. Sub
Registrar and Ors.1, while examining rule 55-A of the
Registration Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, which was
framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the context of
Section 69 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and after
holding that rule 55-A is ultra vires the Indian Registration Act,
1908, in paragraphs 18 and 19, made the following
observations:
18. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held
by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide
whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant
executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of
which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to
register the document if all the procedural compliances are
made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration
charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme
of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or
Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title
to the property which he is seeking to transfer.
19. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties
to the document are present before him and the parties admit
execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural
compliances as narrated above, the document must be
1 (2026) 2 SCC 696
Arjun
9/10 APL-873-2025.doc
registered. The execution and registration of a document have
the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the
executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or
interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect
any transfer.
13. In the case at hand, the impugned FIR contains bald and
unsubstantiated allegations of undervaluation. Neither the
contents of the impugned FIR nor any material produced or
referred to in the impugned FIR establishes a basis for
Respondent No.2 to claim undervaluation of the said property
mentioned in the said Agreement. Furthermore, the impugned
FIR does not raise any issue of non-payment regarding the
stamp duty and registration fees based on the valuation in the
said Agreement, nor does it indicate any procedural non-
compliance. Mr. Aditya Mithe was unable to identify any such
statement or material from the record.
14. In light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of K. Gopi (supra), the basis of the complaint filed by
the Respondent No. 2 against the Applicant, who is implicated in
the crime in his capacity as the Sub-Registrar, would be negated.
15. Considering the allegations in the impugned FIR at face
value and the limited role assigned to the Applicant in the crime,
the rudiments of Sections 318 (4), 336 (3), 338, 340 (2), 61
Arjun
10/10 APL-873-2025.doc
(2), 201 of BNS and 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, are not
established against the Applicant, even prima facie. No case of
commission of a cognizable offence against the Applicant is
made out.
16. Relying on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2 to
prevent abuse of the process of law, interference of this Court in
the exercise of powers under Section 528 of BNSS is made out.
17. This Application is allowed in terms of the prayer clause
(B). Consequently, the impugned FIR against the Applicant is
quashed.
18. There shall be no orders as to costs.
19. Criminal Application No. 873 of 2025 is disposed of.
[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.03.23
22:13:57
+0530
2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Arjun
