Jharkhand High Court
Subhash Kumar Datta @ S.K. Dutta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 3886 of 2022
------
Subhash Kumar Datta @ S.K. Dutta .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Md. Jalil .... .... .... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Special P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate
------
Order No.05 Dated : 02.02.2023
The instant Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order taking
cognizance dated 23.09.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No.443 of
2018 registered under Sections 420, 468, 467, 379, 384, 323, 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 25A and 26/ 35 of the Arms Act.
2. As per the case of the Complainant, land measuring 0.83 decimal of
Khata No.22 Plot No.64 was purchased by Chapla Devi registered deed vide
registered deed No.2290 dated 06.05.1946.
3. In 1990, one Ghulam Subhani purchased 76 decimal by a forged
registered deed being 17373 of the year 1990 appertaining to Khata No. 91,
Village-Korra area 76 decimal which was sold to Sunil Kumar and Madhuri
Singh by him in 1992 vide registered deed No.1912 and 1914, which was
subsequently mutated in their name.
4. The main allegation is that Registration Department, Hazaribagh in
collusion with the land mafias changed the Khata No.91 to Khata No.22 by
rectification deed. This was done by the petitioner (A9), who at the relevant
time was the Registrar, in collusion with the Circle Officer, Inspector and
Circle karamchari Hazaribagh and land mafias in the year 2018.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the act was done bona-
fide in official discharge of duty and, therefore, cognizance cannot be taken in
view of the judgment rendered in the case of Anil Kumar & Ors. vs. M. K.
Aiyappa & Anr., passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1590-91 of 2013 @ Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.6652-6653 of 2013 and also in the case of
Rajesh Ekka vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1594 of 2006.
6. Rectification was made bona fide on the basis of correction slip and
mutation paper issued by the concerned circle office and the deed presented
both the parties. Further, Section 86 of the Registration Act, 1908 grants
immunity to the Registering Officer for acts done bonafide in good faith in his
official capacity.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of opposite party No.2
that present rectification deed has been executed after lapse of 23 years of the
original registered deed. Rectification of instrument which has been registered
can only be made by orders of the Civil Court under Section 26 of Specific
Relief Act. On the point of sanction, reliance has been placed in the case of
Inspector of Police & Another Versus Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam &
Another reported in (2015) 13 SCC 87 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reiterated the law earlier laid and held that where the public servant is alleged
to ensure for fabrication of records or misappropriation of public fund that
cannot said to be discharge of his official duty. The rectification of instrument
can be allowed only within three years from execution of deed in view of
Article 113 of Limitation Act and Section 26 of Specific Relief Act.
8. From the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, it is
apparent that the main grievance of the complainant arises from the
rectification deed by which the Khata number has been changed. There is no
allegation against this petitioner for the offence of cheating as there is no
averment even remotely to suggest that this petitioner made any wrongful gain
from the said rectification of deed. The allegations are general and omnibus
levelled in para-6 of the complaint petition against the Registration
Department, Hazaribagh and in para-7 also against the Circle Officer, Circle
Inspector and land mafias.
9. In order to make out an offence of forgery for purpose of cheating,
there should be materials to show dishonest intention on the part of the
accused. In the present case, the rectification of the deed was made after it was
presented before the Registrar by both the sellers as well as purchasers and on
the basis of the correction slip issued by the Circle Officer. In this
circumstance, it is difficult to infer that the petitioner was actuated by a
dishonest intention while registering the rectification deed. In the absence of
dishonest intention, criminality cannot be imputed to the petitioner.
10. There that cannot be any doubt that said rectification is non est in the
eyes of law, having been done after the period of limitation as provided under
Section 26 of the Bihar Registration Manual. Such a rectification can only be
made by orders of the Civil Court under Section 26 of Specific Relief Act and
therefore, cannot have any force whatsoever. But this by itself cannot be a
ground to put the petitioner who was Registrar at the relevant point of time on
trial on the basis of the complaint. It is in order to provide protection to the
officer for acts done in good faith that precisely in such situation that Section
86 of the Indian Registration Act has been enacted.
The summoning order issued against this petitioner is accordingly
quashed.
The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
