k IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2257 OF 2022 Between: Shilavantha Venkata Ramana Rap, S/o S.Nagabhushana Rao, D.No.19-a, Maruthi Homes, Joharapuram road, Kurnool, KnI-camp-b, Kurnool District Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 7 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO Kurnool III Town P.S., Rep. through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amarvathi, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT 2. T.Raghavendra, S/o T.Subrahmanyam, Aged about 43 years, Occ - Business, R/o Bengaluru, Karnataka State. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR.No.35/2022 dated 10.02.2022 on the file of Kurnool III Town Police Station, Kurnool, Kurnool Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. District, for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in FIR.No.35/2022 dated 10.02.2022 on the file of Kurnool III Town Police Station, Kurnool, Kurnool District, for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 including the arrest of the Petitioner. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M R K Chakravarthy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010301362009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2257/2022 Between: SHILAVANTHA VENKATA RAMANA RAO, S/O.S.NAGABHUSHANA RAO, D.No.19-a, MARUTHI HOMES, JOHARAPURAM ROAD, KURNOOL, KNL-CAMP-B, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED N0.7 AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI. 2.T.RAGHAVENDRA, S/O.T.SUBRAHMANYAM, AGD ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O.BENGALURU, KARNATAKA STATE. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.M.R.K.CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioher/Accused No.7, seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.35 of 2022, on the file of Kurnool III Town P.S., 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Kurnool District for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and 2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present crime without there being any specific allegations against him. Learned counsel would further submit that, the Petitioner in discharge of his official duties, registered the Sale Deed dated 11.07.2018, therefore, no offence is attracted against the Petitioner. It is submitted that, at the time of registration of the said sale deed, the identity of the executants was verified and his finger prints and photographs were also matched with the Aadhar database. Therefore, the question of forgery impersonation by the Petitioner does not arise. It is submitted that no specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that, as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Petitioner cannot refuse to register the document. Learned counsel would pray for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against Petitioner/A.7. She would submit that the allegations made against the Petitioner in the complaint would 2 for short ‘I.P.C.’ 3 squarely attract the offences alleged. It is submitted that, in view of the stay granted, the investigation has been stalled. The truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner have to be revealed during investigation. Therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed at this stage. Point for Determination Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether the proceedings against the Petitioner/A-7 in Crime No.35 of 2022, on the file of Kurnool III Town P.S., Kurnool District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. ? 5. Determination by the Court The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ is considered as the guiding torch in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances necessary to invoke this jurisdiction are spelt out as follows; 6. “102. In the backdrop of the Interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice! though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines.or rigid formulae and to give 3 AIR 1992 SC 604 • 4 exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. an (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prime facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. or (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. so (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance 5 on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarkmg upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) The allegations made against the Petitioner/A.7 is that, being the-then Sub-Registrar, he helped the other Accused in forging the signatures of the Complainant and fabricating the Sale Deed with regard to the subject property. At this juncture, it is trite to note that a Sub-Registrar has no option but to register the document, unless when it is not in conformity with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the rules thereunder. In case of refusal to register, reasons must be passed. Thus, the role of the registering authority is well confined within the limits of the Act, 1908. In the absence of any averment indicating that the Sub-Registrar was part of the falsification of the records, merely on the ground that the document that was presented before him, was registered, in discharge of his usual course of duty, cannot by itself be a ground for criminal prosecution. 7. 8. Admittedly; as per Section 17. of the Registration Act, 1908, any Sale Deed of value more than Rs. 100/- and reduced into writing, is a compulsorily registerable document. Further, as per Section 23 of the Registration Act, the Petitioner being the Registering Authority, cannot refuse the Sale Deed which was presented for registration. Therefore, mere registration of the said Sale 6 Deed in lieu of his official duties, do not attract the offences alleged against him. In such circumstances, there is some force in the contention of the Petitioner that after verification of the fingerprints and the photographs with the Aadhar database, the Petitioner/Accused No.7 registered the said document. Further, no iota of material has been placed on record to attract the alleged offences against the Petitioner/Accused No.7. Therefore, in view of the guideline No. 1 in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), since the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of offence and make out a case against the Petitioner/A.7, the criminal proceedings initiated against him are liable to be quashed. This Court finds that there are justifiable grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, as the very ingredients of the offending Sections are not attracted, and the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner/A.7 in the above crime are untenable, they are liable to be quashed. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.7 in Crime No.35 of 2022, on the file of Kurnool III Town P.S., Kurnooi District for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 9. any 10. Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Station House Officer, Kurnool III Town Police Station Kurnool, District. 2. One CC to Sri M R K Chakravarthy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies RAM J HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2257 of 2022 j ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION