Criminal Misc. No. M- 14111 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 14111 of 2008 Date of decision:- 10.5.2011 Lalit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J. The petitioner has sought quashing of complaint bearing No.165 of 2007 titled as “Sombir Versus Santosh and others” under Sections 420,465,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal instituted on 18.7.2006 and decided on 23.1.2008 by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Assandh. Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate counsel for the petitioner contends that one Santosh was owner in possession of a piece of land measuring 3 Kanals 5 marlas situated at Village Ballah, District Karnal. She suffered a collusive decree in favour of her brother Ram Mehar on March 8, 2006. On the basis of the said decree, Ram Mehar sold the land to Roshni Devi wife of Sombir complainant. Thereafter, Santosh executed release deed in favour of her brother's sons Ashok Kumar and Suresh Kumar on 11.5.2006. The petitioner Criminal Misc. No. M- 14111 of 2008 -2- registered the said sale deed. The allegation in the complaint is that a fraud has been committed upon the complainant Sombir as he has purchased the land from Ram Mehar brother of Smt. Santosh vide sale deed dated 18.4.2006. The same land has been transferred in favour of Ashok Kumar and Suresh Kumar on 11.5.2006. After the sale deed dated 18.4.2006 Smt. Santosh had no right to execute the release deed in favour of Ashok Kumar and Suresh Kumar. A complaint was registered on 13.6.2006 (Annexure P-1) alleging that the complainant had purchased 3 Kanal 5 Marlas vide sale deed dated 18.4.2006 in the name of his wife Smt. Resh Devi for a sale consideration of Rs.2,04,000/-. A mutation was sanctioned in the name of complainant's wife on 23.5.2006 by accused No.5 i.e. Lalit Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, District Karnal. This land was purchased from Shri Ram Mehar. Smt. Santosh had transferred her share of this land to Ram Mehar, her brother vide civil Court decree dated 08.3.2006. The allegation is that accused No.1 subsequently got registered a sale deed dated 11.5.2006 with respect to the same land in favour of Ashok Kumar and Suresh Kumar. The allegation against the petitioner, who is accused No.5 is that once he has registered the sale deed on 18.4.2006, he could not have registered the sale deed qua the same land on 11.5.2006. Hence, he connived with all the accused cheated the complainant and is liable to face trial and has been rightly summoned vide order dated 23.1.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh (Annexure P-2). Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Hari Singh versus Sub Registrar, Narnaul 1998(3) PLR 787 to contend that Sub Registrar has no power to make probe into the ownership of the property sought to be transferred in any manner. The observation of the Bench in paragraph No.9 is as under :- “9. The Registration Act itself is a complete code. All reasons have been specifically enumerated under Sections 21,23,28,32 and 35 of the Act for which a Sub Registrar or Criminal Misc. No. M- 14111 of 2008 -3- the Registrar may refuse to register the sale deed and other documents required to be registered under the Act. The Act nowhere provides that the Sub Registrar/Registrar can refuse to register the lease deed/sale deed pertaining to property the ownership of which is in question. It does not fall within the domain of the Registrar or Sub Registrar to ask the executant of the deed to establish his or her ownership in respect of the property which is subject matter of the deed of conveyance. The legislature, in its wisdom, has not thought it proper to make such a provision in the Act authorising the Registrar/Sub Registrar to make a probe into the ownership of the property sought to be transferred in any manner. The provisions of Section 34 of the Act empower the Registering Officer to make inquiry before registration of a document. The Registering Officer has the right to make inquiry whether or not such document was accepted by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and to satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document and the case of any person appearing as a representative, assignee or agent satisfy himself of the right of such person to appear.” The ratio of the above judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In response to the notice of motion, reply has been filed by respondent No.2 in which specific stand has been taken that the fact of sale of land in favour of wife of the complainant by Ram Mehar and passing of civil Court decree dated 08.3.2006 was in the knowledge of the present petitioner. Despite that he connived with the co-accused registered the sale deed No.103/1 dated 11.5.2006. All the pleas taken by the petitioner can be taken at the time of defence and the complaint is liable to be quashed. Smt. Santosh had filed a civil suit challenging the civil Court decree dated 08.3.2006 alleging that she has been cheated by her own brother Ram Mehar. She never put in appearance before the permanent Lok Adalat, Karnal in favour of Ram Mehar i.e. why she Criminal Misc. No. M- 14111 of 2008 -4- executed the release deed in favour of her brother's sons Ashok Kumar and Suresh Kumar on 11.5.2006 and it is purely a civil matter between Smt. Santosh, Ram Mehar and wife of complainant Sombir namely Resham Devi. As per the investigation report dated 23.7.2006 no case was made out against the present petitioner except Ram Mehar, who had cheated Smt. Santosh. Copy of the report is Annexure P-4. After going through the entire record and in view of the above facts and law laid down by this Court in Hari Singh versus Sub Registrar, Narnaul (supra) the continuance of proceedings in the complaint against the petitioner are abuse of process of Court. The criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and complaint bearing No.165 of 2007 titled as “Sombir Versus Santosh and others” under Sections 420,465,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal instituted on 18.7.2006 is quashed. 10.5.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE