Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 804 (KAR)

Timmanna v. State of Karnataka

2021-08-03

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. The petitioner was the Senior Sub-registrar of Dharwad. A complaint was filed against the petitioner and other accused persons by respondent No.2, based on which Crime No.124/2021 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(f) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case of the complainant is that, she was granted land bearing R.S.No.10, measuring 5 acres, situated at Itigatti village by the Land Tribunal, Dharwad. In respect of the said property, the complainant filed a Writ Petition No.114571/2019 before this Court on 11.10.2019 and the said case was taken up on board for hearing on 23.03.2021, meanwhile another Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.148864/2020 was also on board for hearing on the very day, which is filed by the GPA holder of the complainant. The complainant alleged that, she has never executed any GPA and the alleged GPA is a created document by forged thumb impression and photo of the complainant on 13.04.2015. The accused No.2 behind the back and without knowledge of the complainant and with the assistance of accused No.6 who is the scribe of the document has prepared a forged GPA and got it signed by the accused Nos.4 and 5, who are the witnesses to the alleged GPA and got it registered through the Sub-registrar i.e. petitioner/accused No.3 by presenting the accused No.1 as executant. The accused persons have played fraud on the complainant even though knowing well that, she belongs to a Scheduled Caste. 3. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the cases of S.Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Sub Registrar, (1990) ILR(Kar) 3740 ; Sri. Devaraju B. Vs. The State in Criminal Petition No.4158/2014 and connected matters (DD 07.12.2016); Sri. D. Shivakumar S/o. Dodda Hanumaiah Vs. The State and another, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner has acted in the in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965. There are no allegations whatsoever in the complaint that the petitioner was aware of the falsity of the documents presented before him. The State and another, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner has acted in the in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965. There are no allegations whatsoever in the complaint that the petitioner was aware of the falsity of the documents presented before him. In the absence of any averments to the effect that petitioner also participated in the alleged acts of criminal conspiracy and falsification of records merely on the ground that documents presented before him were registered in the course of his duties cannot be a ground for prosecution of the petitioner. The prosecution launched against the petitioner being wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1, while disputing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the wake of clear allegations contained in the complaint, the matter calls for thorough investigation and hence, the impugned proceedings do not deserve to be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant has contended that, the duty of the Sub Registrar while registering the documents is to verify the parties, thereafter has to register and at the time of registration, the petitioner has colluded and created the documents and also created the voter ID card and he has colluded with other accused and created forged GPA. 6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 7. A reading of the complaint indicates that, a GPA relating to an immoveable property belonging to the complainant/respondent No.2 was presented for registration before the petitioner on 13.04.2015. I have perused the copy of the GPA. Except registering the said document, there is nothing in the said document to show that the petitioner herein has identified either the executant or the GPA holder. On the other hand, the endorsement made in the document clearly discloses that the executant was identified by the witnesses by name Ashok Belligatti and Mahadev Byadarkopp. The petitioner has not taken up the responsibility of identifying the executant or GPA holder. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that, the identity of the parties was known to the petitioner, no knowledge of alleged forgery or impersonation can be imputed to the petitioner. The petitioner has not taken up the responsibility of identifying the executant or GPA holder. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that, the identity of the parties was known to the petitioner, no knowledge of alleged forgery or impersonation can be imputed to the petitioner. Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 casts a duty on the Registering Officer to register the documents presented before him, unless the registration thereof is objected by any person on the grounds specified therein. It reads as under: "73. Duties of the Registering Officer:- (i) It shall form no part of the Registering officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal pro test against the registration of a document , provided execution is duty admitted; but in case of executants who are unable to read, the document shall be read out and If necessary explained to them . If the document is in a language which they do no t understand it must be interpreted to them . (ii) If registration is objected to by any person on any of the following grounds, viz . , (a) that a person appearing or about to appear be fore the Registering Officer as an executant or claimant the person he Professes to be , or that he is a minor , an idiot , or lunatic; (b) that the instrument is forged; (c) that the person appearing as a representative , assignee or agent has no right to appear in that capacity; (d) that the executing party is not really dead , as alleged by the party applying for registration; Such objections shall be duly weighted by the Registering Officer and if they are substantiated , registration shall be re fused but under sub-section (2) of Section 58 , If execution be admitted , registration should take place even If the executant refused to sign the Registration Officer's endorsement of admission ." 8. It is not the case of the complainant that, the registration of the alleged document was objected to either by the complainant or any other person on the ground of impersonation or fraud. In this context, it may be useful to refer to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of S.Sreenivasa Rao Vs. In this context, it may be useful to refer to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of S.Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Sub Registrar, (1990) ILR(KAR) 3740 . Considering the similar issue raised before this Court as to the duties of the Sub Registrar, the Division Bench of this Court at para 6 of the said order has observed as under: "6. Coming to the next question as to whether the Registrar of Societies could have issued a direction to the Sub- Registrar not to register a particular document , learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 , 7 and 10, could not point out any provision either in the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 or the Rules framed thereunder or in the Registration Act , 1908, which authorized the Registrar of Societies to make such a direction. We also find no provision in the Registration Act , 1908 which obliges the Sub-Registrar to act upon any such direction and/or to investigate at the stage of registration of a document itself , the title of the party executing the document. We are, there fore of the view that If a document is presented for registration by the executant , and in doing so, the executant complies with all the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 , it is not open to the Sub-Registrar to re fuse registration of the document unless he exercises that discretion pursuant to any provision in the Registration Act , 1908 or any other law or Rule having the force of law . The mere registration of a document is by itself not a proof of its validity , neither does it follow that the executant had title to the property, he seeks to dispose of under the document . Matters such as relating to title have to be decided be fore the appropriate forum . If any person is interested in contending that any particular document executed and registered under the Registration Act, 1908 is invalid or illegal for any reason whatsoever , he is certainly at liberty to question the validity of the document , the title of the executant, and such other questions be fore the proper forum in an appropriate proceeding . If any person is interested in contending that any particular document executed and registered under the Registration Act, 1908 is invalid or illegal for any reason whatsoever , he is certainly at liberty to question the validity of the document , the title of the executant, and such other questions be fore the proper forum in an appropriate proceeding . Similarly , if it is sought to be contended in the instant case that the Trust Deed has been executed in contravention of the provision of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act , 1960 any person aggrieved may challenge the validity of the Trust Deed in a duly constituted proceeding . There is, however , no warrant for the proposition that the registration of the document itself can be prevented by directing the Sub-Registrar not to register the document. We are there fore of the view that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the direction issued by the Registrar of Societies to the Sub-Registrar was competent and consequently Annexure-D was also valid ." 9. From the above proposition, it follows that when the document is presented for registration, the Sub Registrar is not required to investigate into the title of the parties executing the document nor it is open to Sub Registrar to refuse registration of the document, unless the presentation thereof is objected to on the ground mentioned therein. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. D.Shivakumar Vs. The State and another [W.P.No.55725/2016 (GM-RES). in the identical facts considering Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, has observed thus; "7 . In the case of Devaraju B. Vs . The State referred supra , this Court has elaborately considered the obligation of the Sub Registrar with regard to registration of the documents and having regard to the provision of Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules , 1965 and the law laid down by this Court in various other decisions referred to above quashed the proceedings initiated against the Sub-Registrar. Facts of the instant case bear resemblance to the facts of the above case. In the absence of any allegations imputing knowledge to the petitioner about falsity of the document merely on the basis of registration of said document by the petitioner in the course of his duties is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. Facts of the instant case bear resemblance to the facts of the above case. In the absence of any allegations imputing knowledge to the petitioner about falsity of the document merely on the basis of registration of said document by the petitioner in the course of his duties is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. For the above reasons , the petition deserves to be allowed ." The facts of the instant case are similar to the facts of the above case. In the absence of any allegation imputing knowledge of the petitioner about the falsity of the document (impersonation) merely on the basis of registration of the said document by the petitioner in the course of his duties is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 placing reliance on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhuvaneshwar S/o. Laxman Masamatti Vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.101394/2020, has contended that the petitioner in this case has colluded with the rest of the accused - in the performance of his duties and as a consequence fraud and public mischief ensues, could be committing an 'illegal omission' and could be an abettor to the commission of the offences and he is not active collaborator in the commission of offence alleged. On that ground, the petition seeking quashing the proceedings came to be dismissed. In the said case, the accused No.1 - Vijaylaxmi was neither the owner of the property nor she was a General Power of Attorney Holder or a Special Power of Attorney Holder to execute the sale deed on behalf of the real owner. The recitals in the sale deed is to the effect that she was having a consent letter from the complainant for executing the sale deed. In the said case, the executant had no title to the property, only she has consent letter of the complainant who is the owner of the property which was registered by the petitioner of that case. The facts in the present case are different. In the said case, the executant had no title to the property, only she has consent letter of the complainant who is the owner of the property which was registered by the petitioner of that case. The facts in the present case are different. The accused No.2 behind the back and without the knowledge of the complainant and with the assistance of accused No.6 who is the scribe of the document has prepared a forged GPA and got it signed by the accused Nos.4 and 5 who are the witnesses to the alleged GPA and got it registered through Sub Registrar i.e. petitioner/accused No.3, representing accused No.1 as executant. There is alleged impersonation in the present case. Therefore, as the facts are different, the said decision is helpful to the case of respondent No.2. 11. For the above reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.124/2021 registered by the Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad, are quashed, only insofar as the petitioner is concerned.