IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.58 of 2009 Date of decision : June 18, 2009 Thakur Dass Bhardwaj …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : M/s Tarlok Chauhan & Vijay Chaudhary, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) Cr.MMO No.58/2009 Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 24th October, 2006, of learned Judicial Magistrate, whereby his plea for being discharged, in case FIR No.261 of 2000, has been rejected. He is also aggrieved by the order, dated 16th February, 2009, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby his revision petition, challenging the aforesaid order, dated 24th October, 2006, of learned Judicial Magistrate, has been dismissed. 3. Facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, may be noticed. A father and a son had civil litigation in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Shimla, in the year 1984. That Civil case was compromised and one of the terms of the compromise was that the father would execute a gift deed, in respect of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… a five-storeyed building, in favour of his son, with whom he had that litigation. Decree was passed, in terms of that compromise, between the father and the son. Thereafter, the father executed gift deed in favour of his son, in respect of the aforesaid five-storeyed building. That gift deed was presented for registration to the present petitioner, in his capacity as Sub Registrar of documents, under the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner, after satisfying himself about the identity of the executant and the genuineness of the document, i.e. the gift deed, registered the same. 4. It appears that the site, on which the building stood, was owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Deputy Commissioner, on coming to know that gift deed had been registered, in respect of a building standing on Government land, lodged a report with the police. Police registered a case and after investigation filed report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the donee, the present petitioner and the revenue officials, who attested the mutation, on the basis of the gift deed. Executant of the gift deed had, by the time, expired and so his name did not figure in the said report. 5. Plea taken by the petitioner is that he committed no wrong, muchless an offence, by registering the gift deed, because it was none of his duties to have enquired into the title of the donor, before registering the gift deed. Reliance has been placed on Para-111 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration Manual, which reads as follows: “111. Registering officers not concerned with validity of documents.--Registering officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration, and that it would be wrong for them to refuse to register on any such grounds as the following e.g., that the executant was dealing with property not belonging to him, or that the instrument infringed the rights of third persons not parties to the transaction, or that the transaction was fraudulent or opposed to public policy. These and similar matters are for decision, if necessary, by competent courts of law and registering officers, as such, have nothing to do with them. …3… If the document is presented in a proper manner by a competent person at the proper office within the time allowed by law, and if the registering officer is satisfied that the alleged executant is the person he represents himself to be, and if such person admits execution, the registering officer is bound to register the document without regard to its possible effects.” Reliance is also placed on Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, which are reproduced below: “34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorised as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under section 25, the document may be registered. (2) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times. (3) The registering officer shall thereupon- (a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed; (b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and (c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. (4) Any application for a direction under the proviso to sub-section (1) may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate. (5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees or orders. 35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution respectively.-(1)(a) If all the persons executing the …4… document appear personally before the registering officer and are personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the persons they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the document, or (b) if in the case of any person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, such representative, assign or agent admits the execution, or (c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears before the registering officer and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register the document as directed in sections 58 to 61, inclusive. (2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the person they represent themselves to be, or for any other purpose contemplated by this Act, examine any one present in his office. (3)(a) If any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or (b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or (c) if any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying, appearing or dead; Provided that, where such officer is a Registrar, he shall follow the procedure prescribed in Part XII: [Provide further that the [State Government] may, by notification in [Official Gazette], declare that any Sub- Registrar named in the notification shall, in respect of documents the execution of which is denied, be deemed to be a Registrar for the purposes of this sub-section and of Part XII.]” Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench precedent of this Court in Mrs. Rita Sawhney versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others (CWP No.443 of 1986), decided on 16th September, 1986. 6. From a bare reading of Para-111 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration Manual and the provisions of Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, it is clear that a Registrar or Sub-Registrar, charged …5… with the duty of registering documents, under the Registration Act, 1908, is not supposed to satisfy himself about the title of the executant to the property sought to be conveyed. As a matter of fact, he cannot refuse to register a document, on the ground that the executant is not the owner of the property sought to be conveyed/transferred. A Division Bench of this court in Mrs. Rita Sawhney’s case (supra) has held that a Sub- Registrar cannot require the executant of a document to produce papers/deeds, in support of his title to the property sought to be transferred/conveyed and on executant’s failure or refusal to do so, he cannot refuse to register the document. 7. In the present case, gift deed had been executed by the father in favour of his son, on the basis of a compromise decree, passed by a Civil Court. A reading of the impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate suggests that a mention of the compromise decree, especially its condition about the execution of gift deed, in respect of the property, in question, by the father in favour of his son, has specifically been made in the gift deed. 8. In view of the abovestated factual and legal position, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence. Hence, the order dated, 24th October, 2006, of learned Judicial Magistrate, to the extent it orders the charging of the present petitioner for offences, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the said order of the Judicial Magistrate, to the aforesaid extent, is also set aside. The present petitioner is discharged. Petition stands disposed of. Cr.MP No.335/2009 Infructuous. June 18, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.