Sujeet Kumar @ Sujit Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the FIR and criminal proceeding arising out of East Tundi P.S. Case No. 33 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case.

The  allegation  against  the  petitioner  is  that  the  petitioner  being the District Sub-Registrar of Govindpurin Dhanbad in connivance and aid of the co-accused persons in conspiracy to fulfill his own personal benefit, has got registered certain documents even though the land involvedin the same belongs to the informant.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. Drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 08 of  2007,  the  Special  Leave  Petition  against  which  order  has  been dismissed  by  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  of  India  in  S.L.P.  (CC) No. 11962 of 2007 vide order dated 13.12.2007, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therein, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the District Sub-Registrar cannot decided the title of the parties for the purpose of registering of the sale deeds. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner  that  the  petitioner  in  capacity  of  District  Sub-Registrar is not supposed to make any physical verification of the land. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation of impersonation of any executant of the sale deeds. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are vague and there is no allegation against the petitioner as to which document has been tampered with by the petitioner and in what manner. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a public  servant  yet  no sanction has been obtained from  the  competent  authority  for  prosecuting  the  petitioner.  It  is also  submitted  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  that  the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satya Pal Anand vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1202, paragraph no. 36 of which reads as under:-

“36. If the document is required to be compulsorily registered, but while doing so some irregularity creeps in, that, by itself, cannot result in a fraudulent action of the State Authority. Non-presence of the other party to the extinguishment deed presented by the Society before the Registering Officer by no standard can be said to be a  fraudulent action per se. The fact whether that was done deceitfully to cause loss and harm to the other party to the deed, is a  question of fact which must be pleaded and proved by the party making such allegation. That fact cannot be presumed. Suffice it to observe that since the provisions in the 1908 Act enables the Registering Officer to register the documents presented for registration by one party and execution thereof to be admitted or denied by the other party thereafter,  it  is  unfathomable  as  to  how  the  registration of the  document  by following  procedure  specified in  the 1908 Act can be said to be fraudulent. As aforementioned, some irregularity in the procedure committed during the registration process would not lead to a fraudulent execution and registration of the document, but a  case of mere irregularity. In either case, the party aggrieved by such registration of document is free to challenge its validity before the civil court.”(Emphasis supplied)

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if the document is required to be compulsorily registered but while doing so some irregularitycreeps in, that, by itself cannot result in a fraudulentaction of the State Authority.

It  is  further  submitted  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner that the dispute between the informant and the petitioner is a civil dispute but a cloak of criminal colour is given to the same and the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused, only for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 783 of 2018 dated 02.07.2024, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case, this Court relied  upon  the  judgment  of  a coordinate  Bench  of  this  Court  in the case of Dinesh Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. passed in W.P. (C) No. 7325 of 2011 dated 19.07.2012 wherein, the coordinate  Bench  of  this  Court  reiterated  that  if  the  sale  deed  is duly  executed  and  requirement  of  the  law  for  the  time  being  in force have been complied with on the part of the person presenting the document for registration, the same cannot be refused to be  registered and this Court  in paragraph no.8 of  that judgment has also held that the registering authority cannot refuse to register the deed if the same is presented for registration; as the Registering Authority is debarred from examining the nature of right, title and character in respect of the subject matter of the sale deed presented for registration.  Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer but fairly submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of tampering with any particular document, in any particular manner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the allegations made in the FIR is sufficient to constitute  each  of  the  offences,  in  respect  of  which  FIR  has  been registered against  the petitioners.  Hence,  it  is  submitted  that  this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

Having  heard  the  submissions  made  at  the  Bar  and  after  going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner permitted registration of certain sale deeds executed by various persons in respect of the land, the ownership of which is claimed by the informant. There is no specific allegation against the  petitioner  that  the  petitioner  has  tampered  with  any  specific document in any specific manner. There is no allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioner or any dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property. In the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section  408  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  nor  the  offence  punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of inducing any person to part with any property or money nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of deceiving anybody in any manner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

So far as the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal  Code  are concerned; to constitute  each of the said offences, the essential ingredient is forgery.

Now coming  to the  facts of the  case, there is no material in the record to suggest that any forgery has been committed by the petitioner in any specific manner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still none the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offence in respect of which  FIR  has been registered is made out against  the petitioner  even  with  the  aid  of  Section  120B  of  the  Indian  Penal Code, this Court has no hesitation in holding that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse  of  process  of  law  and  this  is  a fit  case  where  the  FIR  and criminal proceeding arising out of East Tundi P.S. Case No. 33 of 2022 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

Accordingly, the FIR and criminal proceeding arising out of East Tundi  P.S.  Case  No.  33  of  2022  is  quashed  and  set  aside  qua  the petitioner.

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.