THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.291 of 2008 15.7.2010 Between J.Tirumal Rao, S/o.Ram Kishan Rao … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.291 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) for quashing the investigation in crime No.1149 of 2007 of P.S. Saroornagar under Sections 419 and 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Police registered the crime on a reference by the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, on the complaint given by the second respondent. The petitioner is a retired Government servant. His son, J.Praveen Kumar, statedly purchased house bearing No.MIG 18, HUDA Colony, Saroornagar, with Municipal door No.11-8-47 (old No.11-8-40) (subject property) from Mir Ahmed Ali, original owner. The sale deed was registered on 28.4.2004 vide document No.2204 of 2004. In the sale deed executed in favour of J.Praveen Kumar, (aged 35 years), vendee was described as a retired Government servant, aged 58 years. These are the particulars of the petitioner but not of his son, J.Praveen Kumar. Subsequently the mistakes were rectified vide rectification deed dated 27.11.2004 executed by the vendor and vendee. Second respondent gave a letter on 24.3.2005 to the Sub Registrar, Saroornagar, alleging that the petitioner impersonated and put his thumb impression near the photo of Praveen Kumar (vendee) in the sale deed. He therefore requested to cancel the sale deed. He also further alleged that Praveen Kumar was not residing in India and the attesting witness, V.N.Subrahmanyam, also disputes his attestation and signature and, therefore, the sale deed has to be treated as document of impersonation. After conducting enquiry, the Sub Registrar sent a report to the District Registrar vide letter No.121/2005, dated 21.6.2005 to the effect that there is no complaint from the vendor or vendee and that there is a dispute between the second respondent and petitioner, which can be resolved in the Civil Court only. Second respondent thereafter filed complaint before Hon’ble the Andhra Pradesh Lok Ayukta. The same was rejected on the ground that there is no material to support the complaint and the second respondent was given liberty to file a criminal case. Thereafter he filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar. The same was referred by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC., which was registered as crime No.1149 of 2007. Contending that any investigation in civil dispute between the parties would amount to abuse of process of law, present criminal petition is filed. Second respondent filed counter affidavit opposing the petition. It is stated that as on the date of purchase on 28.4.2004, Praveen Kumar was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Petitioner impersonated himself as his son, Praveen Kumar, and affixed his signatures and thumb impressions on the registered documents as J.Praveen Kumar. Petitioner thus committed cognizable offence of forgery and impersonation. When the second respondent complained to Sub Registrar, the same was enquired into by Vigilance Officer (Registration Department). A report was submitted to the District Registrar rejecting the allegations made by the complainant. The offence was committed intentionally and, therefore, petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC does not lie. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Saroornagar, also filed counter affidavit opposing the criminal petition. The counsel for petitioner, counsel for second respondent and the Public Prosecutor for first respondent made their submissions reiterating the position in tune with petition and counter affidavits. A perusal of the complaint of second respondent to the Sub Registrar, Saroornagar, and the enquiry report dated 21.6.2005 submitted to District Registrar would reveal the following. In his complaint to Sub Registrar, second respondent alleged as follows. One V.N.Subrahmanyam was tenant of subject property. The owner, Mir Ahmed Ali, allegedly executed agreement of sale in his favour. The tenant wanted to demolish the old house and construct apartment block. Second respondent agreed to purchase a flat therein. Petitioner also agreed to purchase two flats in the apartment block. Second respondent entered into agreement with the tenant. Subsequently Mir Ahmed Ali executed registered sale deed in favour of J.Praveen Kumar, vide document No.2204 of 2004 with left thumb impression of J.Thirumala Rao, petitioner herein. It was also alleged that the tenant, V.N.Subrahmanyam, filed O.S. No.1681 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad (East and North), disputing the signature and attestation on the registered document No.2204 of 2004. After receiving notice from the Sub Registrar, petitioner submitted representation stating that his son purchased subject property from the original owner, Mir Ahmed Ali, and that wrong description of the vendee was got rectified through document No.5795 of 2004. Petitioner also asserted that the second respondent is not owner or purchaser and that he has no right to demand cancellation of sale deed. Further petitioner and his son submitted joint sworn affidavit to the effect that thumb impression in document No.2204 of 2004 belong to Praveen Kumar only. Though notice was sent to the original owner, Mir Ahmed Ali, he did not appear. The notice sent to V.N.Subrahmanyam returned with postal endorsement, “addressee left”. Considering the statements made by petitioner and second respondent as well as joint statement submitted by petitioner and his son, Sub Registrar concluded as follows. In the instant case, there is no complaint from the vendor or vendee and it is only from Sri P.Satyanarayana, Advocate, who has entered into an agreement of sale with Sri V.N.Subrahmanyam who was only a tenant of H.No.MIC 18, HUDA Colony, Saroornagar and not with the original owner, Sri Mir Ahmed Ali. A perusal of the material available reveals that it only a dispute between persons who have entered into agreement of sale (un-registered) and later on the agreements being breached, for which the remedy lies before the Civil Courts only. As regards the impersonation of the left thumb impression of the vendee i.e., Sri J.Praveen Kumar with that of his father Sri J.Thirumal Rao, sworn affidavits submitted by the father and so dispute this also and when whether the impression really belongs to the vendee can only be revealed if and when examined by the authorities concerned if a reference is made to them. As regards the allegations made by Sri P.Satyanarayana, Advocate, against the Registering Officer that he has colluded with the vendee, all the allegations are figments of his imagination and not based on material evidence. He has unnecessarily dragged the Registering Officer into a matter of Civil dispute over which the department cannot intervene. The allegation that the petitioner committed an offence under Sections 419 and 468 IPC are in relation to a document, which is registered by Sub Registrar, Saroornagar. Therefore, Sections 82 and 83 of Registration Act, 1908, are relevant. They are quoted below. 82. Penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation, and abetment Whoever- (a) intentionally makes any false statement, whether on oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or (b) intentionally delivers to a registering officer, in any proceeding under section 19 or section 21, a false copy or translation of a document, or a false copy of a map or plan; or (c) falsely personates another, and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission to be issued, or does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or (d) abets anything made punishable by this Act; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. 83. Registering officer may commence prosecutions (1) A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permissions of the Inspector- General, 31[***] the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed. (2) Offences punishable under this Act shall be triable by any court or officer exercising powers not less than those of a Magistrate of the second class. The offence of impersonation or forgery in relation to a document registered by Registering authority can be made out only when a person intentionally makes a false statement or falsely personates another. On these aspects, Sub Registrar has already conducted enquiry and submitted report to the District Registrar. While doing so common sworn statement of petitioner and his son was also taken into consideration wherein it was stated that the thumb impression in the sale deed is that of Praveen Kumar only. The matter must rest there. Secondly, prosecution of an offence under Registration Act as enumerated under Section 82(a) to (d) of Registration Act can only be commenced with the permission of Inspector General, Registrar or Sub Registrar in whose territory such an offence is committed. Admittedly Sub Registrar has already concluded that it is only a dispute between the petitioner and second respondent and is nothing to do with Section 82 of Registration Act. In this background, if investigation is allowed into the crime, it would certainly result in miscarriage of justice especially when the vendor and vendee executed rectification deed correcting the description of vendee, namely, J.Praveen Kumar. For this reason, this Court is satisfied that it is a fit case to quash the investigation into crime No.1149 of 2007 of P.S.Saroornagar. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) July 15, 2010. YS