JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in respect of the registered FIR in Crime No.06 of 2019, dated 04.03.2019, on the file of Respondent Police and quash the same as illegal and not maintainable.) 1. The Fourth Accused in the FIR is the petitioner herein. 2. The petition is filed seeking quashment of FIR No.06 of 2019 dated 04.03.2019, registered against the petitioner under Sections 167, 420, 409 r/w 109 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) r/w Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act and under similar provisions of law against 26 others. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the FIR, is as follows: (i) The allegation in the FIR dated 04.03.2019, is that a 'school building' at Sri Bala Vidya Mandhir School, was completed construction as early as 25.06.2014 as evidenced from the 'structural soundness certificate' dated 28.05.2014 given by one Mr.E.Srinivasan, a panel Engineer, for the purpose of seeking recognition/license from Education Department for commencing school. (ii) Suppressing the completed construction and the existence of school building and by showing the property as “Punjai-land”, A2 and A3 namely the Sub-Registrar, Arani and Joint-Registrar, Kanchipuram, have accepted and registered the following documents in respect of the subject property. (a) Conveyance and made-over of lease vide document Nos.5773 and 5774 of 2014 dated 30.07.2014 (b) Document No.9183 of 2014 dated 10.12.2014 The above said documents were accepted for registration without siteinspection by the registering authority thereby caused stamp-duty (revenue) loss to the government. (iii) The array of the accused are that A1 is the Village Panchayat Board President, A2 and A3 are the Sub Registrar, Arani and the Joint Registrar, Kancheepuram, respectively in the office of the Sub Registrar, Arani, wherein sale deeds have been registered and A5 to A27 are the purchasers and vendors of the property in this case. 4. Seeking quashment of the impugned FIR, qua, the petitioner/A4, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 would submit that building permission was accorded by the petitioner/A4 as Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning. 4. Seeking quashment of the impugned FIR, qua, the petitioner/A4, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 would submit that building permission was accorded by the petitioner/A4 as Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning. He received application for the construction of the building on 13.06.2014 and accorded permission on 03.07.2014 and therefore, the allegation in Ex.P1-complaint that at the time of registration of document by A2 and A3 on 10.12.2014, there exists a building and further allegation that suppressing the existence of building A2 and A3, officials of the Sub Registrar office have treated the subject property as vacant land, thereby caused revenue loss to the exchequer and further stated that since the Registration of the document between A5 to A27, happened during December 2014, whether the land was vacant or not on 03.07.2014, cannot be presumed and hence, the very allegation is on presumption. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 would further contend on the point of delay that, the alleged grant of permission by the Petitioner/A4 is in the year 2014, complaint was said to have been registered in the year 2017 and after preliminary enquiry in the year 2019, complaint was taken as an FIR and after three years till 2022, there is no progress. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A4 would further contend that the alleged certificate issued by the Licensed Engineer is a forged and fabricated, in which instead of mentioning the subject property as proposed building, he has mentioned it as building and relied upon the report given by Highways Department, wherein it is mentioned as proposed building at various columns. The very same document was relied upon by the prosecution. According to the Petitioner, the document issued by the private Engineer as license holder cannot be put against him to make a claim that on the date of issuance of building permission on 03.7.2014, there exists a building. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A4 also stated that without building permission, the building could not have been constructed and hence, the document relied on by the complainant viz., licensed Engineer's report must be forged or fabricated for the purpose of obtaining permission from the school authority/Education Department. Neither photographs nor completion certificate were enclosed and hence, he would contend that the said report cannot be a point for prosecution against the petitioner herein. Neither photographs nor completion certificate were enclosed and hence, he would contend that the said report cannot be a point for prosecution against the petitioner herein. 8.(a) According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) as per the Field Report annexed with for the permission granted by A4, on 03.07.2014, three sides have been shown as vacant site. (b) Perused records. There is no allegation against the petitioner/A4 either in the complaint or in the FIR. The alleged building permission on 03.07.2014, has nothing to do with the registration of the document, since the Registration Department has its own mechanism to have a field inspection to assess, whether it is a vacant site or building for collection of necessary stamp duty. Name of the Petitioner is in the FIR and he was arrayed as A4. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record. 10. In short, the petitioner has projected that he received application for approval of the building on 13.06.2014 and accorded permission on 03.07.2014 and therefore, the allegation in complaint that at the time of registration of document by A2 and A3 on 10.12.2014, there exists a building and suppressing the existence of building A2 and A3, (officials of the Sub Registrar office) have treated the subject property as vacant land, thereby caused revenue loss to the State exchequer and further stated that since the Registration of the document between A5 to A27, happened during December 2014, whether the land was vacant or not as on 03.07.2014, cannot be presumed and hence, the very allegation is on presumption. 11. The next point that was projected was point of delay. The alleged grant of permission by the petitioner/A4 is in the year of 2014. Complaint is received in the year 2017 and FIR was registered in the year 2019 and the present case for quashment was filed in the year 2022, since there was no progress in the investigation. 12. The sum and substance of the complaint and the FIR are to the effect that A2 and A3 are the officers in the registration department in the cadre of Sub Registrar and Joint Registrar and have alleged that they have registered a sale deed as if the land is a vacant site. 12. The sum and substance of the complaint and the FIR are to the effect that A2 and A3 are the officers in the registration department in the cadre of Sub Registrar and Joint Registrar and have alleged that they have registered a sale deed as if the land is a vacant site. However, it is alleged that there exists a building at the time of the registration of the document presented by the purchaser before A2 and A3 for which reliance is placed upon a private Engineer's report. 13. For the purpose of registration of the sale deed or any document as the case may be, a field inspection will be carried on by the officer and staff of the registration department, before releasing the document and hence, the contention of the prosecution that the report of this petitioner/A4 for the building permission is basis for registration, cannot be countenanced at the first instance. 14. There is no allegation against the petitioner/A4 either in the complaint or in the FIR. The main complaint in the impugned FIR as stated supra is against A2 and A3. The alleged role played by the petitioner/A4 is that he gave the building permission for the construction of the school building. 15. As stated supra, on 13.06.2014, the application for the building permission was received from the said educational trust and it was forwarded to the petitioner's office by the local body viz., the President of the Village Panchayat and as per the records, inspection by the petitioner/A4 was on 24.06.2014 and a letter was given for payment of necessary fees and on 03.07.2014, building permission was granted. 16. At this juncture, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A4, the President of the Village Panchayat has no objection certificate; the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services department has issued 'No Objection Certificate' on 21.02.2014; the Highways Department has granted permission on 19.05.2014 and the Thasildar, Arani, has issued 'No objection Certificate' for granting of the building permission on 23.05.2014; and hence, based upon these documents, the petitioner/A4 has conducted a field inspection and granted the building permission on 03.07.2014. 17. (a) The above factual position was not disputed by the respondent police. As per the FIR, it is based on a source information. 17. (a) The above factual position was not disputed by the respondent police. As per the FIR, it is based on a source information. In the counter by way of status report, it is stated as if they received a complaint from one VG Dhanasekaran. (b) Admittedly, complaint was filed in the year 2019, after five years from the date of issuance of planning permission by the petitioner/A4. (c) The petitioner/A4 has inspected the property on 24.06.2014. On that date, No Objection Certificate by the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue department in the month of February 2014, the permission letter by the Highways Department dated 19.05.2014, the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the Thasildhar, Arani on 23.05.2014, are available to indicate that the site is a vacant site as stated by the petitioner/A4 in his report for granting building permission, assumes significance. 18. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) harped upon a report of a panel engineer seeking recognition for the school dated 28.05.2014. The 'structural soundness certificate' alleged to have been issued by the private panel engineer for a recognition of the school cannot be taken as a basis for more than one reason. 19. Though the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) drew my attention to the certificate issued by E.Sreenivasan, the said certificate is not in the prescribed format. It appears to have been prepared on a letter-head of the said engineer. It is full of bereft of essential details including the linear measurements. The measurements are seem to have been taken from the proposed plan. Admittedly, in the said alleged report, no photograph of the building is enclosed, evidencing the alleged existence of the building, assumes significance. 20. In the said panel engineer's report, the vital columns which is said to be enlightened by the prosecution is without requisite particulars as to the completion certificate, building approval plan, date of inspection of the building, date of commencement of construction, date of completion of the construction and building approval details. In other words, I find that it is a make believe story, is projected, as if a private panel Engineer has given the report. The private Engineer, who is said to have issued the certificate to the school building, has neither indicated whether he inspected the building or he had verified the building plan approval. 21. In other words, I find that it is a make believe story, is projected, as if a private panel Engineer has given the report. The private Engineer, who is said to have issued the certificate to the school building, has neither indicated whether he inspected the building or he had verified the building plan approval. 21. It remains to be stated that a panel Engineer's report cannot said to be complete without the above details of photograph of the building, alleged existence of the building, completion certificate or building approval plan, details of the building approval plan, dates of commencement and completion of construction, date of inspection, however, in the instance case, curiously all are kept blank and hence, I find that based upon an empty panel Engineer's report, the prosecution is holding the case against the petitioner/A4. 22. The main allegation in the substratum of the FIR is that the A2 and A3, who are the officers of the registration department without doing the field inspection have registered the document and caused revenue loss to the State exchequer to the tune of Rs.27,27,898/-. 23. It is settled law that under the Registration Act, the stamp duty and registration charges are to be collected as per the registration manual and before releasing the document, a field inspection is to be carried out by the A2 and A3 for the registration of the document and therefore, I find that the registration department has its own mechanism for the inspection of the sites that are subject matter of the sale deeds, so as to arrive at the stamp duty and registration chargers thereof and the building permission issued by the petitioner/A4 is not at all a basis for such registration of the said documents and hence, the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the building plan approval given by the petitioner/A4 is the basis for registration of a document, cannot be countenanced and it has to fall flat. 24. FIR shows that it is based on source information. In the status report it is mentioned as complaint was given by one V.G.Dhanasekaran, after five years. The building plan approval was given by the petitioner in June 2014. After three years, preliminary enquiry was conducted and report was filed on 04.09.2017 and two years thereafter FIR seems to have been registered on 04.03.2019. In the status report it is mentioned as complaint was given by one V.G.Dhanasekaran, after five years. The building plan approval was given by the petitioner in June 2014. After three years, preliminary enquiry was conducted and report was filed on 04.09.2017 and two years thereafter FIR seems to have been registered on 04.03.2019. Even after three years of the FIR, in toto, eight years of the alleged occurrence, case is still pending investigation. 25. Learned counsel of the petitioner/A4 relied upon the decision of the High Court in K. Jayakumar Vs. State, by Inspector of Police dated 25.02.2002 and Anoop Kumar Vs. State of Kerala in respect of Section 167 IPC [Crl.M.C.No.6232 of 2017 dated 12.03.2020]. 26. From the submissions made by both parties and documents produced, I find that neither the petitioner/A4 has any role nor the building plan permission by the petitioner/A4 has any relevance in the registration of the conveyance deed, on the basis of which FIR in question was registered. 27. In view of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs and taking note of the scope of the quashment and the enquiry that can be entertained by the Court in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court summarises that (a) in the FIR, it is named as source information while in the counter it is mentioned as complaint given by one private person V.G.Dhanasekaran. Three years after the alleged incident i.e. in July 2014 the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police has conducted an enquiry in the year 2017, registered the FIR in the year 2019 and the Criminal Original Petition is filed in the year 2022 stating no progress is found. (b). The building permission granted by the petitioner/A4 that there exists a vacant site has duly reflected in the contemporary documents in the same year 2014 i.e., in February by the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department, in May 2014 by the Revenue department-Tahsildar, Arani and Highways Department, which are immediately precedes to the date of building permission on 03.07.2014. 28. 28. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that in the permission letter granted on 19.05.2014 by the Highways Department, it has clearly mentioned as the proposed building, proposed pathway, proposed site and hence, I find that by harping upon a private report, which is full of blanks and bereft of vital information as stated supra, cannot be a basis for continuation of the prosecution and allowing the same amounts to abuse of process of Court. Even going by the substance and substratum of the FIR, it is not against the petitioner/A4 and hence, I find that continuation of this proceedings by the respondent police under the impugned FIR qua the petitioner/A4 amounts to abuse of process of Court. 29. It also remains to be stated that the main complaint is being the registration of the sale deed between the accused A5 to A27 by the one set of vendors in favour of one set of purchasers, by the A2 and A3, for the non compliance of the field inspection which has said to have resulted in pecuniary loss to the exchequer of the State. Thus, I find that a case against A5 to A27, stand on an entirely different footing, as they are the beneficiaries and being the parties to the transaction and the petitioner/A4 is no way connected with the alleged presentation of the sale deed as well as registration of the sale documents, which are within the exclusive domain of A2 and A3 also stand on a different footing, in view of the allegations contained in the FIR. 30. Therefore, though not on the point of delay singularly, combined with the other points as discussed supra and in view of the substratum of the FIR as discussed, I find that the building permission granted by the petitioner/A4 on 03.07.2014 has reflected that it is a vacant site, which is duly supported by the revenue certificate, Fire and Rescue Department certificate, Highways Department certificate and the Village Panchayat President certificate and hence, on a cumulative analysis of the above said factors, this Court comes to the conclusion that the continuation of the proceedings under the impugned FIR qua the petitioner/A4 cannot be allowed and hence, I am inclined to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to prevent the abuse of process of Court. 31. 31. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.06 of 2019, dated 04.03.2019, on the file of Respondent Police, is quashed against the petitioner/A4 only. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.