K. R. Nagaraja vs The State By
2021 Latest Caselaw 6099 Kant

                          -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER,2021

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


        WRIT PETITION NO.38079 OF 2017 (GM-RES)


BETWEEN:

1. K.R. NAGARAJA
S/O. LATE K. RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS SUB-REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR
NELAMANGALA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.

2. SRI. M. GIRISH
S/O. Y.T. MUDALAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR
NELAMANGALA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
                                       ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. K. SATHISH FOR SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, ADVOCATES)


AND:

1.     THE STATE BY
       SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
       NELAMANGALA POLICE STATIN
       BANGALORE-562 123.
                            -2-



2.   SRI. L. DORESWAMY
     S/O. LATE LLINGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO.4/1, 17TH CROSS,
     WEST PARK ROAD,
     MALLESWARAM,
     BANGALORE-560 055.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R-1, NOTICE TO
R2 HELD SUFFICIENT)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED
18.08.2017 GIVEN BY THE R-2 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME
NO.201/2017 DATED 18.08.2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-B) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED (ACCUSED NOS.6 AND 5 RESPECTIVELY).

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                       ORDER

The petitioners, in the subject writ petition, who are

working as Sub-Registrars, have called in question the

complaint dated 18.08.2017 given by the 2nd respondent

and First Information Report dated 18.08.2017 registered

in Crime No.201/2017, pending on the file of 1st

respondent.

2. Heard Sri.K.Sathish, learned counsel appearing

for Sri.M.S.Bhagwat, learned counsel for petitioners and

Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government

Pleader, would in unison, accept that the issue in the lis

stands covered by the judgments of the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of SMT.

SULOCHANAMMA VS. H. NANJUNDASWAMY AND

OTHERS1 wherein it is held as under:

"The registration of the deed was refused on the basis of the com-munication received from the Tahsildar that the revenue documents were all bogus and false. The Sub-Registrar was entrusted with the duty of registering the documents in accordance with the provisions of the Act and he was not authorised to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the documents presented before him. If the documents are bogus or false, the party affected by it will have the right to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings to prosecute the party who tries to have benefit from such document and also to safeguard his right, title and interest. It was not for either the Tahsildar or the Sub-Registrar to express opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the documents unless called upon by the Court of law or any other

(2001) 1 KantLJ 215

authorised investigating agency. There was no occasion for the Sub-Registrar to refer the document to the Tahsildar when presented for the purpose of registration. Thus, both the Tahsildar and the Sub- Registrar have exceeded their jurisdiction in the matter in submitting his report regarding registration of the document and upon such report the second respondent should not have made an endorsement on the document and refused to register the document by him."

A later Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case

of SRI. S. RAMANNA VS. THE STATE BY

NELAMANGALA POLICE AND ANOTHER2 has held as

under:

"Para 3 - Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has to verify whether the documents produced are bogus documents or not, whether the vendor has clear title deed to the property, whether the transfer is by impersonating the real owner and whether the transfer is in accordance with law? There is no reference under the sale deed that there is transfer of non agricultural land without conversion order nor there is any allegation that this authority has got anything to do with the conversation order or non-conversion.

Para 4 - Section 192-A refers to Clause (5) which deals with sale of an agricultural land for non- agricultural purposes without getting such land converted or without getting approval of the competent authority. Section 192(B) relates to abetment of offences. From the registered sale deed produced in this case, it shows that a small portion

Crl. P. No.4662/2008

of agricultural land has been sold. No doubt, the vendor might be circumventing the provisions of Land Revenue Act by selling the land in piece meal. But that does not constitute an offence as far as the Sub-Registrar is concerned. Along with the sale deed, the vendor has produced the certificate of the purchaser to show that the purchaser is an agriculturist and has also obtained necessary permission under the relevant law. If that is so, as far as this petitioner is concerned, there is no violation of Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The complaint dated 19.09.2008 by the Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore and the First Information Report dated 15.10.2008 in Crime No.962/2008 on the file of the JMFC, Nelamangala insofar the petitioner is concerned are quashed."

Following the aforesaid judgments, a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of SRI. DEVARAJU B.

VS. THE STATE BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE

STATION AND ANOTHER3 has held as under ;

"5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, by way of reply, would point out that the question is no longer res integra. Since the circulars could be an impediment to register documents when the petitioners are duty bound to register documents, they have been quashed by a Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No.18939/2009 and connected cases dated 18.3.2016, following a division bench decision in S. Sreenivasa Rao vs. Sub-Registrar, ILR 1990 Kar. 3740 and yet another decision in Smt.Sulochanamma vs. H.Nanjundaswamy and others, 2001 (1) KLJ 215, wherein it was held that

Crl. P. No.4158/2014 and connected matters

when a document is presented for registration fulfilling all requirements, the Sub-Registrar has no option but to register the document unless the document is not in conformity with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act of 1908 and the relevant Rules and that the Sub-Registrar was entrusted with the duty of registering documents in accordance with the provisions of the Act and he was not authorized to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the documents presented before him. If the documents are bogus and false, the party affected by it will have the right to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings to prosecute the party who tries to have benefit from such document and also to safeguard his right, title and interest. It was not for either the Tahsildar or the Sub-Registrar to express opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the documents, unless called upon by the court of law or any other authorised investigating agency.

Reference was also drawn to a judgment of the Supreme Court, wherein Section 22A as inserted by the Legislature of Rajasthan made to the Act which is in pari materia with the aw prevailing in Karnataka and that the circulars if any issued overriding the provisions of the Act and Rules would not have any precedence and that there was no irregularity in the Sub-Registrar not having complied with the terms of the Circular contrary to the provisions of the law.

6. Hence, in the light of the settled legal position, the petitions are allowed. The proceedings pending against the respective petitioners in Crime No.297/2014, Crime No.269/2014, Crime No.295/2014, Crime No.296/2014, Crime No.270/2014 and Crime No.268/2014, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, as well as PCR No.17160/2013 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and Crime No.256/2013 are quashed."

4. All the afore-quoted judgments were

concerning certain acts of the Sub-Registrars in

registering certain documents, which the complainant

claims to be forged by the beneficiaries of such

transaction, in which, the registered document is the

subject.

5. In the light of the judgments afore-quoted

rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, the

registration of the criminal case against the Sub-

Registrars would be rendered contrary to law. Therefore,

proceedings pending against the Sub-Registrars - the

petitioners herein warrants appropriate interference by

obliterating the pending proceedings against them. For

the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) Impugned proceedings pending in

Cr.No.201/2017 dated 18.8.2017 before

the 1st respondent stands quashed qua the

petitioners.

(iii) It is made clear that any observations or

finding rendered in the course of this order

would not bind any other Court before

whom any other proceedings against any

other person against the same transaction

is pending adjudication.

Sd/-

JUDGE

snc