Allowed

Sri C J Prabhakar v. the State by Kodigehalli

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2016CRL.P/3843/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Sub-Registrators, holding that under Section 58 of the Registration Act and Rule 73 of Karnataka Registration Rules, they are duty-bound to register documents upon admission of execution and cannot be criminally harassed for complying with their statutory duty over contrary government circulars.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; proceedings in Crime Nos. 297/2014, 269/2014, 295/2014, 296/2014, 270/2014, 268/2014 and PCR No.17160/2013 quashed.

Sri C J Prabhakar Vs the State by Kodigehalli — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4158 OF 2014

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3843 OF 2014 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4493 OF 2014

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4494 OF 2014 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4495 OF 2014

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4553 OF 2014

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4554 OF 2014

¶12

IN CRL.P.No.4158/2014

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

Sri. Devaraju B., Son of Byraiah B., Aged about 35 years, Sub-Registrar, Madanayakanahalli,

¶15

¶16

Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 562 123.

¶17

…PETITIONER

¶18

(By Shri M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate)

¶19

AND:

¶20

The State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Nelamangala Circle, Bangalore – 562 123 Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police.

¶21

Panchayath Development Officer,

¶22

Madaavara Gram Panchayath, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 562 123.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1; Shri M. Pradeep, Advocate for Respondent No.2)

¶25

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the impugned complaint dated 28.6.2014 (Annexure-A) and the First Information Report bearing Crime No.297/2014 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Nelamangala (Annexure-B).

¶26

¶27

IN CRL.P.No.3843 OF 2014

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

Sri. C.J.Prabhakar, Son of Late A.Jogi Gowda, Aged about 37 years, Working as Senior Sub Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Residing at No.8, 18^th ‘A’ Cross, Arokia Nilaya, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, Hebbal, Kempapura, Bangalore – 560 024.

¶30

…PETITIONER

¶31

(By Shri M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate) AND:

¶32

The State by Kodigehalli Police Station, Yelahanka Division, Bangalore City, Bangalore – 560 064.

¶33

Sri. Shivanand Kanavi, Son of Shekarappa Kanavi, Aged about 40years, Residing at No.7, 1^st Floor, 1^st Cross, Basaveshwara Layout, Gundappa Road, Nagashetti Halli,

Bangalore – 560 094.

…RESPONDENTS

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1;

¶38

Shri M.K.Girish, Advocate for Respondent No.2)

¶39

¶40

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire proceedings in PCR No.17160/2013 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, including the FIR bearing Crime No.256/2013 and all further proceedings in PCR No.17160/2013 (Annexure-A to C respectively), in so far as the petitioner (accused No.3) is concerned.

¶41

IN CRL.P.No.4493 OF 2014

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

Sri. Devaraju B., Son of Byraiah B., Aged about 35 years, Sub-Registrar, Madanayakanahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 562 123.

¶44

…PETITIONER

¶45

(By Shri M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate)

¶46

AND:

¶47

The State by

¶48

Madanayakanahalli Police Station,

¶49

¶50

Nelamangala Circle, Bangalore – 562 123 Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police.

¶51

Panchayath Development Officer, Dasanapura Gram Panchayath, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 562 123.

¶52

…RESPONDENTS

¶53

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1; Respondent No.2 served)

¶54

¶55

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the impugned complaint dated 16.6.2014 (Annexure-A) and the First Information Report bear in Crime No.269/2014 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Nelamangala (Annexure-B).

¶56

IN CRL.P.No.4494 OF 2014

¶57

BETWEEN:

¶58

Sri. Devaraju B., Son of Byraiah B., Aged about 35 years, Sub-Registrar, Madanayakanahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 562 123.

¶59

…PETITIONER

¶60

¶61

(By Shri M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate)

¶62

AND:

¶63

The State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Nelamangala Circle, Bangalore – 562 123 Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police.

¶64

Panchayath Development Officer, Sondekoppa Gram Panchayath, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 562 123.

¶65

…RESPONDENTS

¶66

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1; Respondent No.2 served)

¶67

¶68

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the impugned complaint dated 28.6.2014 (Annexure-A) and the First Information Report bear in Crime No.295/2014 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Nelamangala (Annexure-B).

¶69

¶70

IN CRL.P.No.4495 OF 2014

¶71

BETWEEN:

¶72

Sri. Devaraju B., Son of Byraiah B., Aged about 35 years, Sub-Registrar, Madanayakanahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 562 123.

¶73

…PETITIONER

¶74

(By Shri M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate)

¶75

AND:

¶76

The State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Nelamangala Circle, Bangalore – 562 123 Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police.

¶77

Panchayath Development Officer, Gopalapura Gram Panchayath, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 562 123.

¶78

…RESPONDENTS

¶79

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1; Shri Ravishankara, Advocate for Shri M. Shivaprakash, Advocates for Respondent No.2)

¶80

¶81

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the impugned complaint dated 27.6.2014 (Annexure-A) and the First Information Report bear in Crime No.296/2014 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Nelamangala (Annexure-B).

¶82

IN CRL.P.No.4553 OF 2014

¶83

BETWEEN:

¶84

Sri. Devaraju B., Son of Byraiah B., Aged about 35 years, Sub-Registrar, Madanayakanahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 562 123.

¶85

…PETITIONER

¶86

(By Shri M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate)

¶87

AND:

¶88

The State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Nelamangala Circle, Bangalore – 562 123 Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police.

¶89

Panchayath Development Officer, Huskoor Gram Panchayath, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,

Bangalore – 562 123.

…RESPONDENTS

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2)

¶94

¶95

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the impugned complaint dated 20.6.2014 (Annexure-A) and the First Information Report bear in Crime No.270/2014 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Nelamangala (Annexure-B).

¶96

IN CRL.P.No.4554 OF 2014

¶97

BETWEEN:

¶98

Sri. Devaraju B., Son of Byraiah B., Aged about 35 years, Sub-Registrar, Madanayakanahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 562 123.

¶99

…PETITIONER

¶100

(By Shri M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate)

¶101

AND:

¶102

The State by

¶103

Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Nelamangala Circle, Bangalore – 562 123

¶104

¶105

Represented by its

¶106

Sub-Inspector of Police.

¶107

Panchayath Development Officer, Kithnahalli Gram Panchayath, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 562 123.

¶108

…RESPONDENTS

¶109

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 Shri Ravishankara, Advocate for Shri M. Shivaprakash, Advocate for Respondent No.2)

¶110

¶111

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the impugned complaint dated 20.6.2014 (Annexure-A) and the First Information Report bear in Crime No.268/2014 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Nelamangala (Annexure-B).

¶112

These Criminal Petitions coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶113

O R D E R

¶114

These petitions are considered and disposed of by this

¶115

common order having regard to the similarity under which the

¶116

¶117

petitioners were arraigned as accused before the court below in the respective cases filed against them.

¶118

The proceedings in all these petitions are initiated on the

¶119

basis of complaints filed by the Panchayat Development Officer, except the petition in Criminal Petition No.3843/2014, which is based on a private complaint.

¶120

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are

¶121

working as Sub-Registrars, which is a post constituted and established under the Registration Act, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for brevity). The Act prescribes the procedure for admission and execution of documents. It also enables the Registering Officer to satisfy himself that persons appearing before him are the persons who are executing the documents. It is pointed out that Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 further mandates that it shall form no part of the registering officer’s duty to inquire into the validity of the document brought to him for registration. The petitioners

¶122

¶123

are bound to register documents and in registering such documents normally, the khata certificates issued in Form No.9B and 11B are examined. The petitioners have accepted the khata certificates in respect of agricultural lands which are assessed to house tax by virtue of the construction having been put up. Such registration has been questioned on the allegation that there were complaints of such registrations being in respect of concocted and deprecated documents, particularly, the khata certificates which were sought to be produced in respect of sale transactions. It is on the basis of such complaints that First Information Reports were lodged against each of the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 463, and 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity) and the Police have started investigation on the basis of the First Information Reports and the records were called for from the respective petitioners. It is that which is sought to be challenged in the present proceedings.

¶124

¶125

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend

¶126

that the petitioners have no power under the law to inquire into the validity of the documents. When the execution of the documents is admitted by the concerned parties, each of these petitioners were duty bound to register such document in terms of Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965. It is only if the registration is objected to by any person on the ground that a person appearing before the Registering Officer as an executant is a minor, an idiot or lunatic or that the instrument is forged or that the person appearing as a representative, assignee or agent has no right to appear in that capacity or that the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party applying for registration. The registering officer is bound to weigh such objections and if they are substantiated, the registration shall be refused. But under sub-section (2) of Section 58, if execution be admitted, registration should take place even if the executant refuses to sign the Registering Officer’s endorsement of admission.

¶127

¶128

It is contended that unless there was any such objection as aforesaid, each of the petitioners were compelled to register the documents, which they have done. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, would contend that the criminal proceedings initiated are misconceived and would run contrary to the law.

¶129

The learned Counsel for the respondents would

¶130

contend that the State Government being aware of large scale illegalities, particularly insofar as seeking registration of the parcels of land which were basically agricultural lands, on the footing that they have been put to non-agricultural use and seeking to register parcels of land as being assessed to house tax, would lead to large scale illegalities in agricultural land indirectly being utilized for non-agricultural purposes, without following the procedure prescribed in law and therefore safeguards had been built in, wherein the registering officers were restrained from registering such transactions without

¶131

¶132

reference to certain particulars which was indicated, such as that credence should only be given to ‘Electronic Khata’ generated online and without ascertaining that there was digital signature of the Panchayat Development Officer, no such registration should be entertained. The learned Counsel would submit that the registration has been in total violation of the said Circular and hence criminal proceedings.

¶133

The learned Counsel for the petitioners, by way of

¶134

reply, would point out that the question is no longer res integra.

¶135

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 when a document is presented for registration fulfilling all

¶136

¶137

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

¶138

¶139

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.

¶140

Hence, in the light of the settled legal position, the

¶141

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

¶142

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.

¶143

Sd/-

¶144

JUDGE

¶145

Sri C J Prabhakar v. the State by Kodigehalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C J Prabhakar v. the State by Kodigehalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Guruprasad M.V. Vs Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force

Sri S Siddhaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Naveen Kumar K M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Devaraju B Vs the State by

Sri Devaraju B Vs the State by

Smt Sandhya Rani Vs M Manjunath