THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.Petition No.3766 of 2008 Date: 24.03.2011 Between: Puppla Anjeswara Rao and 3 others … Petitioner/A.1 to A.4 AND 1. Guruv Sree Rama Murthy 2. State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.3766 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4. They sought for the quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.52 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam before whom they were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act read with Sections 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The accused are close relatives. They are the owners of the property in an extent of 3,355 square yards situate in Survey No.40P, Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam. The de facto complainant who is the first respondent and his friend (LW.2) are said to be business persons. The de facto complainant and his partner entered into an agreement of sale with the accused herein on 09.09.1989 to purchase the property owned by the accused at a total cost of Rs.19,00,000/-. The accused apparently received Rs.4,00,000/- as part payment at the time of agreement of sale. 3. As the accused dodged registration of the sale deed in favour of the de facto complainant and his partner, a suit in O.S.No.78 of 1996 was laid by the de facto complainant and his partner on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.78 of 1996 also laid I.A.No.1057 of 1996 in O.S.No.78 of 1996 seeking for temporary injunction restraining the accused herein from alienating the plaint schedule property which is the property in respect of which the accused entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs in O.S.No.78 of 1996. It would appear that a temporary injunction was granted by the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, through an order dated 16.11.1999. 4. Although there was a temporary injunction against the accused, the accused entered into an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with third parties on 21.02.2005 and sold away the property. It was recited in the agreement of sale-cum-GPA that the schedule property (the property owned by the accused herein) was free from all charges, agreements of sale, court litigation and that they (the accused) had absolute authority to sell the same in the aforesaid manner. This is the recital in respect of which the plaintiffs in O.S.No.78 of 1996 lodged a complaint before the police. It is this recital which is the subject matter of controversy before the criminal Court and before me. 5. As already pointed out, the first respondent herein is one of the agreement of sale holders from the accused. He is one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.78 of 1996. He lodged a complaint for the offences u/s.419 and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 120-B IPC. The Court referred the same to police for investigation. A case was registered as Crime No.175 of 2005 on the file of the I-Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. Admittedly, police laid the final report in that case holding that no case is made out against the accused herein. Consequently, charge sheet was not filed. 6. The first accused consequently filed a private complaint against the accused u/s.82 of the Registration Act r/w Section 120-B and 34 IPC. It is the contention of Sri G. Ramgopal, learned counsel for the first respondent that the offence u/s.82 of the Registration Act prima facie is made out against the accused. On the other hand, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, senior counsel representing the accused contended that Section 82 of the Registration Act is not attracted even if all the facts as alleged by the de facto complainant are admitted and that the charge sheet, consequently, is liable to be quashed. 7. Section 82 of the Registration Act provides for punishment for intentionally making any false statement before any officer acting in execution of the Registration Act, in any proceeding on enquiry under the Act. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that when a document is presented for registration, the executant of the document would first be questioned by the registering authority about the genuineness and voluntariness of the document and that the document is registered only after the executant confirms the correctness of the document. His claim is that where the registering authority ascertains from the executant about the correctness of the document, it would be tantamount to making a statement by the executant in a proceeding or enquiry under the Act. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that proceeding or enquiry contemplated by Section 82 (a) of the Registration Act is an enquiry into any of the questions relating to the Registration Act and that a mechanical registration of a document by the registering authority would not attract the phrase “in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act” authorising Section 82 (a) of the Registration Act. His submission is that assuming that the accused made a false statement in the agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of third party in 2005, such a false statement would not fall under Section 82 (a) of the Registration Act. 8. I consider that the examination of the executant of the document mechanically by the registering authority cannot be equated to any proceeding or enquiry under the Registration Act envisaged by Section 82 (a) of the Registration Act. There shall be a regular proceeding or enquiry under the Act wherein the registering authority must have examined the executant in which event, any false statement by such an executant would fall within the mischief of Section 82 (a) of the Registration Act. There is no prima facie evidence that the accused made a false statement in any proceeding or enquiry. I may hasten to add that patently the accused made a false statement by reciting that the schedule property is free from all charges, agreements of sale, court litigation and that the accused had the absolute authority to sell the same. The question is whether such a false statement was made in any proceeding or enquiry under the Registration Act. I am afraid that the de facto complainant failed to show that this falls claim in the agreement of sale-cum-GPA could be considered to be made in a proceeding or enquiry before the registering authority. The accused, therefore, does not fall within Section 82 (a) of the Registration Act. The other sub-sections of Section 82 of the Registration Act clearly do not apply to the present case. 9. Where the false recitals in the agreement of sale-cum- GPA are not covered by Section 82 (a) of the Registration Act, no prima facie case is made out against the accused. The prosecution of the accused for the offence u/s.82 of the Registration Act, therefore, is misconceived. 10. In this background, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused. The proceedings in C.C.No.52 of 2008 against the accused for the offence u/s.82 of the Registration Act r/w Sections 120-B and 34 IPC are misconceived and are accordingly quashed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 24.03.2011 Isn