Rajeevan M. v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/3RD BHADRA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 5210 of 2016 -------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 10/2014 OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU-I, KANNUR** **....** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2: -----------------------** **RAJEEVAN M., S/O.KUNJAPPAN, AGED 48, RESIDING AT MATHAPPALLY HOUSE, MAMBALAM, PAYYANNUR, PIN-670 741.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: --------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT COMPOUND, KOCHI-682 031.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.HRITHWIK** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5210 of 2016** ## **-----------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -------------------------** **ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.10/2014 OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU-I, KANNUR DTD.31.12.2014. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC 4416/15 DT.5-7-16. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE DOC.2445/1995 S.R.O., PAYYANNUR DTD.5.6.1995. ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE DOC.NO.654/2012 S.R.O., PAYYANNUR DTD.7.2.2012. ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.9023489 DTD.25.7.2011. ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 140/2014 MUNSIFF'S COURT, PAYYANNUR DTD.5.4.2014 ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS 140/14 MUNSIFF'S COURT, PAYYANNUR, DT.16-9-2014. ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC 3721/15 DTD.17.6.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE: -----------------------NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## **B. KEMAL PASHA, J.** ................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 5210 of 2016 ............................................................... Dated this the 25[th] day of August, 2016 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the 2[nd] accused in FIR No.10/2014 of the VACB, Kannur, registered for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused is that A1 to A3, being public servants, by corrupt and illegal means, hatched a criminal conspiracy with A4 and A5 and forged false documents, on the strength of which, the 5[th] accused could execute a document in respect of 8 cents of property on 05.06.1995 in favour of her daughter, Leena, by claiming ' _kuzhikanam_ right' over the CRL.M.C.No. 5210 of 2016 -: 2 :- said property. On the basis of the said document, once again, the said Leena executed a document dated 07.02.2012 in favour of her sister Reena. 3. It is alleged that on 16.03.2012, the 3[rd] accused had received land tax in respect of the said property without mutating the same. It is alleged that by such corrupt and illegal means, the accused had effected undue enrichment to the 5[th] accused and her family. 4. The 2[nd] accused, herein was one of the members of the staff of the Sub Registry concerned, during the registration of Annexure-C document in the year 1995. Later, he was promoted in service and he became the Sub Registrar. It was during his tenure as the Sub Registrar Annexure-D sale deed was registered. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that any of the offences alleged in the case will CRL.M.C.No. 5210 of 2016 -: 3 :- not lie, even against any of the accused persons. A5 is one Sarada, who had executed Annexure-C settlement deed in favour of her daughter Leena as document No.2445/1995. The said settlement deed was executed in respect of 8 cents of property and a small building thereon in Sy.No.73/1 of _Kunjimangalam_ Village. 7. Subsequently, the said Leena has gifted the property to her sister, Reena, who is the daughter of Sarada, in the year 2012 through Annexure-D gift deed No.654/2012. In the said document, the said 8 cents of property and the small building therein is shown as one in Sy.No.72/5 of the _Kunjimangalam_ Village. Precisely, the said variation in the survey number in Annexure-D gift deed has paved the way to allege that the said document is forged and fabricated. 8. Earlier, the 4[th] accused in the case who was the document writer concerned, had moved this Court through Crl.M.C.No.4416 of 2015 for getting the proceedings against him in the crime quashed. This Court vide Annexure B order CRL.M.C.No. 5210 of 2016 -: 4 :- allowed the said Crl.M.C. and all further proceedings against the 4[th] accused were quashed. 9. Some members of the Varikkara Vadakke Tharavadu have filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur as O.S.No.140/2014 against the 5[th] accused Sarada, and her daughters Leena and Reena as defendants 1 to 3, and other defendants as 4 to 7, seeking recovery of possession of the said 8 cents of property from defendants 1 to 3. In the plaint in the suit, which was one for recovery of possession based on title, the possession of defendants 1 to 3 over the property has been clearly admitted. The plaintiffs in the said suit are claiming title over the property and they have sought for recovery of possession based on title. 10. In Annexure-C as well as Annexure-D documents, the right vested in Sarada as well as Leena over the property has been clearly described as 'Kuzhikanam right'. It is pertinent to note that A5 Sarada has not claimed title CRL.M.C.No. 5210 of 2016 -: 5 :- over the property in Annexure-C settlement deed. What she had settled on her daughter Leena was her ' _Kuzhikanam_ right' over the property. Annexure-C settlement deed is one for the transfer of possession only and not for title. 11. Even though in the prior document, which is Annexure-C, the Re-survey number is shown as 73/1, from the tax receipt it was revealed that the Re-survey number was 72/5. It is evident that Annexure-D document was prepared on the basis of the tax receipt in respect of the property. When tax was received in respect of the said extent of property in Sy.No.72/5, this Court had held that the 4[th] accused was perfectly justified in showing the said survey number in Annexure-D document. 12. The allegation against the petitioner is that some mistakes or discrepancies in the names of _jenmi_ , extent and survey numbers of properties have been crept in the document. The petitioner being the Sub Registrar functioning under the Registration Act was not expected or CRL.M.C.No. 5210 of 2016 -: 6 :- bound to verity and confirm the accuracy and truthfulness of every recital, entry or figure in the document tendered for registration. If, as a matter of fact, the said discrepancies or mistakes are there, the parties concerned have to suffer. The Sub Registrar was also not bound to verity and confirm that the executant had title over the property. Once the Sub Registrar finds that the property is properly valued, proper stamp duty is paid, and proper registration fee is also paid, going by Section 34 of the Registration Act and Rule 191 of the Registration Rules(Kerala), the Sub Registrar is bound to register the document. In _**Eshaque v. Sub Registrar** [2002 (1) KLT 330]_ , this Court had occasion to consider the said question. It was held that the Registration Act did not make any provision authorising the registering authority to satisfy about the title of the executant of the document before registration. 13. The matter involved herein is _sub judice_ in O.S.No.140/2014 of the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur. CRL.M.C.No. 5210 of 2016 -: 7 :- Unnecessarily, the petitioner who was the Sub Registrar, who happened to register Annexure-D document has been dragged into this criminal case. He need not be a party at all to the proceedings. Matters being so, all further proceedings against the petitioner in the present crime is unnecessary and the same are liable to be quashed. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner based on Annexure-A, FIR are hereby quashed. **Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.** ul/- // true copy // P.S. to Judge.