Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISIDCTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     No  …  1508  ………  .     of     2012   @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3149 of 2010

State of Madhya Pradesh ….. Appellant

Versus

Surendra Kori ….. Respondent

With

Crl. A.No.1509        of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3150 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1510      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3151 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1511      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3152 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1512      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3153 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1513      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3154 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1514      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3155 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1515      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3156 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1516      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3157 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1517      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3158 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1518      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3160 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1519      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3161 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1520      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3162 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1521      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3163 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1522      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3164 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1523      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3165 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1524      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3168 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1525      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3169 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1526      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.1371 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1527      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3172 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1528      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3173 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1529      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3174 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1530      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3175 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1531      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3176 of 2010

Page 2

2

Crl. A.No.1532      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3177 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1533      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3178 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1534      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3179 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1535      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3180 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1536      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3181 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1537      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3182 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1538      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3183 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1539      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3184 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1540      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3185 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1541      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3186 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1542      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3187 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1543      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3188 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1544      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3189 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1545      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3190 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1546      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3191 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1547      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3192 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1548      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3193 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1549      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3194 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1550      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3195 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1551      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3196 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1552      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3198 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1553      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3200 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1554      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3201 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1555      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3202 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1556      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3203 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1557      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3204 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1558      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3205 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1559      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3206 of 2010 Crl. A.No.1560      of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3207 of 2010 Crl. A.No.15561  of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3623 of 2010

 O     R     D     E     R   

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side.

Page 3

3

3. We are disposing of all these fifty four appeals by a common  

order since the identical issues arise for consideration in all these  

appeals.  For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, we may refer to  

the facts in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3149 of 2010,  

treating the same as the leading case.    

4. The respondent herein, who was functioning as the Deputy  

Registrar, Khargone, was charge-sheeted for offences punishable  

under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 34 and 120B of  

the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Sections 34 and 81  

of the Registration Act.  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur  

Bench, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 482 of the  

Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’), quashed the First  

Information Reports and the charge-sheets filed against the  

respondent and also quashed the criminal case No. 2500 of 2007 and  

other connected matters. In order to properly appreciate the  

correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the High Court, it is  

necessary to refer to few facts.

Page 4

4

5. State of Madhya Pradesh had introduced a Special Rehabilitation  

Package (for short ‘Package’) for those persons who were displaced  

from their lands, submerged while implementing the Sardar Sarovar  

Project (for short ‘the Project’).  As per the Package, for the Project  

affected persons/oustees, cash benefit in two installments was  

provided to enable them to purchase land of their choice.  The amount  

would be deposited in bank accounts of the oustees and the first  

installment would be released when the oustees submits an affidavit  

intending to purchase land and the second and final installment would  

be released when both the seller and the purchaser would get their  

sale deed registered and submit the proof of such registration of sale  

deed.  For availing of the benefit of that Package it was alleged,  

various fake sale deeds were got registered in the Registrar’s Office at  

Khargone.  Complaints were raised about the manner in which the  

benefit of the Package was availed of by persons who were not  

affected by the Project.  Narmada Bachao Andolan also filed a  

complaint before the Narmada Valley Development Authority regarding  

registration of fake sale deeds for claiming the benefit of the Package.  

Page 5

5

6. The Collector, District Khargone, vide its letter dated 23.7.2007,  

directed the Deputy Collector, Khargone to conduct an inquiry and  

submit a report.  The Deputy Collector submitted the report on  

11.9.2007.  The operative portion of the report reads as follows:

“Because the detailed enquiry of these sale transactions do  not seem to be possible without the police action; therefore  registering of the Criminal Case and sending this initial  enquiry report to the Narmada Valley Development  Authority for the proceedings of sentencing the guilty  persons after detailed enquiry and getting the case  registered for the police action by the land acquisition  officer through the Collector of the concerned district are  proposed.”

Further, referring to several sale deeds, it was specifically pointed out  

that some of the vendees and vendors of the documents were fictitious  

persons and deeds were executed and registered fraudulently.  

7. Several FIRs were registered on the complaints filed by the  

Rehabilitation Officer of the Project, District Khargone before the  

Kotwali Police Station.  In the FIR No.496 dated 18.9.2007  the report  

of the Deputy Collector dated 11.9.2007 was specifically referred.  The  

operative portion of the FIR reads as follows:

“12. ……….Reference: - received the letter no. 791 dated  11.9.2007 of the Collector, Khargon for necessary action.  Regarding the aforesaid subject, it is said that name –

Page 6

6

displaced (Vendee) Naniya s/o Hariya r/o Gangli has  received amount of Rs.3,39,857/- as the special  rehabilitation grant after submitting the registration serial  no. A-1/2575 dated 25/3/2006.  The additional Collector,  Khargon has found this in the enquiry of the said  registration that in the sale deed the survey no. is wrong.  The vendor is neither the resident of village nor there is any  existence of the vendor in the village.  Therefore prima  facie the sale transaction has been found to be illegal.  In  this regard the vendee has submitted after preparing the  said forged registration fraudulently in conspiracy after  being in agreement with the vendor Amar Singh s/o  Chandar Singh Caste- Rajput, r/o Bamhnala and with the  witnesses (1) Ashiq s/o Alabali Pinjara, r/o Sondul Dist.  Barbani (2) Jagdish s/o Pataliya r/o Dehdala and with the  deed writer, B. L. Gupta, Ravindra Nagar Baheti near the  tower Khagon with the purpose of receiving improper and  illegal benefit from the land of khasra no. 76 of the village  Pokharbujurg, tehsil Bhikhangaun, dist. Khargon.  On the  basis of the said forged registration he has committed  offence after putting the government in financial loss of  Rs.3,39,857/- improperly.  Therefore the essential legal  acation may be taken against the vendee Naniya s/o Hariya  r/o Gangli, tehsil Manawar Dist. Dhar, against the vendor  Amar Singh s/o Chandar Singh Caste –  Rajput, r/o  Bamhnala and against the witnesses (1) Ashiq s/o Alabali  Pinjara, r/o Sondul dist. – Barbani (2) Jagdish s/o Pataliya  r/o Dehdala and against the deed writer, B.L. Gupta,  Ravindra Nagar Baheti near the tower Khargon.  The report  regarding the forged registration in the sub registrar office  Khargon has been submitted. Annexure:- 1. The letter no. 791 dated 11/9/07 of the Collector  

Khargon, with the photocopy of the enquiry report. 2. The photocopy of the registration no. A-1/2575 dated  

25/3/2006 - signature Ashok Kumar Modi, rehabilitation  officer, Sardar Sarobar Project, Manbaj, Dist. Dhar.

Page 7

7

13. The action taken in connection with the aforesaid  description u/ss 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 34.  After  registering the case it was taken for investigation/not taken  and the case was handed over to Om Prakash Mishra  (inspector/sub inspector) or in the light of the jurisdiction it  was transferred to the P.S. -----dist.”

8. We find that the Department of Registration of the State of  

Madhya Pradesh, after having come to know about the registration of  

sale deeds on large scale between 1.4.2005 and 31.3.2007, also  

ordered for an enquiry after placing the respondent who was the  

Deputy Registrar, Khargone at the relevant point of time under  

suspension.  Detailed enquiry was conducted by the District Registrar,  

Khargone and he submitted the report on 27.10.2007 to the Inspector  

General (Registration), State of Madhya Pradesh.   In the enquiry  

following procedural irregularities were found:

“1. Even the photocopies of the copy of Khasara of five  years have been accepted.  Detailed description is  mentioned in the annexed list.

2. Under the section 30(1) of the Registratin Act the sub  Registrar, Head Quarter, has not realized the additional fee  of Rs.200/- under the Article -7 of the Registration Fee  Table in the registration of the concerned deeds related to  the property situated in other tehsils of the district and  Rs.10/- under the article-10 of the said table.

Page 8

8

3. Under the section-30(1) of the Registration Act 1908 the  Sub Registrar, head quarter, has not sent memos to the  concerned sub registrars under the section-64 of the said  Act in the registration of the concerned deeds related to  the properties situated in other tehsils of the district.

4. Affidavits have not been sworn and filed in the deeds  related to the agricultural land in compliance of the  Circular No. 2822/tak/one/2005 dated 21.11.2005 of the  Inspector General-Registration; Bhopal.  Detailed  description is available in the annexed list.

5. According to the Circular No.3610/tak/one/2004 dated  15.12.04 of the Inspector General, Registration, Bhopal,  the P.A.N. Card nos. of the vendors and vendees have  not been got mentioned at the time of registration of the  deeds of the valuation of Rs. Five lacs or of more than  that according to the provisions of sections 139A of the  Income Tax  Act 1961 and of Rules 114 kh and 114 gh framed there  under.  According to the report received from the sub  registrar, Khargon, dated 26.10.2007 the draft nos 60  and 61 have not been received.   The concerned deeds  have been mentioned in the annexed list.    

6. In the deeds the photo copies of the certificates of the  Land Acquisition Officer have been accepted instead of  originals, the description of which has been in the  annexed list.

7. The information regarding the loan book has been shown  in the annexed list.”

Page 9

9

9. The Investigating Officer took note of the above mentioned  

reports and a final report (charge-sheet No. 546 of 2007) was  

submitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before the Court against the  

respondent and also against persons who got the sale deeds executed  

on 25.3.2006 and the charge was laid under Sections 420, 467, 468,  

469, 471 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the IPC and under  

Sections 34 and 81 of the Registration Act, 1908.   The operative  

portion of the charge-sheet reads as follows:

“The brief description of the occurrence is like this that on  18/9/07 one written application with the deed for enquiry  was brought and submitted.  Naniya, s/o Hariya, r/o Gangli  has received the amount of Rs.339857/- as the special  rehabilitation grant after submitting the registration no. A- 1/2575 dated 25/5/3006 the additional collector, Khargaon,  has found this in the enquiry of said registry that the survey  no. of the sale deed is wrong.  The     vendor     is     not     the    resident     of     the     village     nor     has     the     vendor     got     any     existence    in     the     village.      Therefore     prima     facie     itself     the     sale    transaction     was     found     to     be     illegal  .  In this regard, the  vendee has submitted after preparing the said forged  registration fraudulently & in conspiracy after being in  agreement with the vendor –  Amar Singh s/o Chandar  Sikngh Caste- Rajput, r/o Bamhnala and with the witnesses  (1) Ashiq s/o Alabali Pinjara, r/o Sondul dist. Barbani (2)  Jagdish s/o Pataliya r/o Dehdala and with the deed write, B.  L. Gupta, Ravindra Nagar Baheti near the tower Khargon  with the purpose of receiving improper and illegal benefit  from the land of khasra no. 76 of the village Pokharbujurg,  tehsil Bhikhangaun, dist. Khargon. On the basis of the said  forged registration he has committed offence after putting

Page 10

10

the government in financial loss of Rs.339857/- improperly.  In the case the accused B.L. Gupta and Surendra Kori also  have been arrested.  In the case the document of the bank  has remained to be received and the proceeding of the  comparison of the thumb impression of the accused Naniya  is yet to be done, regarding the accused B.L. Gupta  evidence is to be collected.   Regarding     the     accused    Surendra     Kori     the     certified     hand     writing     examination     report    and     the     necessary     documents     and     the     statement     of     the    district     registrar     are     to     be     taken.     The     accused     Surendra     Kori    has     abetted     in     committing     the     offence     of     criminal    conspiracy     in     the     crime     and     he     has     misused     his     position.     In    this     regard     also     investigation     is     being     done     and     permission    is     being     sought     for     submitting     the     charge     sheet     against     the    accused.  In this case the comparison of the impressions of  the fingers and the arrest of the rest accused persons are to  be done.  The enquiry report of the additional collector,  Khargon and his statement are yet to be taken. In spite of  the attempts made till now they could not be taken up till  now.  In this case the offence against the accused Naniya  on being found confirmed after preparing the charge sheet  546/07 u/s 173(8) is yet to be submitted. In the case  investigation is still going on, after finishing which the full  charge sheet will be submitted separately.”

10. Respondent herein then approached the High Court to quash the  

FIRs as well as various charge-sheets filed against him.  It was  

contended before the High Court that the respondent, under the  

Registration Act, was bound to register the sale deeds in the capacity  

of the Sub-Registrar.   Further, it was also pointed out that he had no  

obligation or duty to ascertain about the correctness or genuineness of

Page 11

11

the documents which were brought before him for registration.  

Further, it was also pointed out that the respondent had no knowledge  

about the alleged forgery or the fraudulent manner in which the sale  

deeds were sought to be registered.  The Deputy Government  

Advocate appearing for the State contended that it was after  

conducting a detailed enquiry through the District Registrar, Khargon it  

was found that the respondent was also involved in the fraudulent  

transactions and had abated the parties in getting those sale deeds  

executed.

11. The High Court took the view that the respondent, in the capacity  

of the Sub-Registrar and functioning under the Registration Act, was  

bound to register the documents brought before him and was not  

expected to ascertain about the correctness and genuineness of the  

title of the property and also whether there was any conspiracy  

between the vendors and vendees in getting those sale deeds  

executed.  Further, it was also pointed out that the enquiry reports  

revealed that there were only procedural irregularities in the  

registration of sale deeds and there was nothing to show respondent’s  

involvement in getting those sale deeds executed.  The Court held that

Page 12

12

on the basis of the provisions of Section 34 of the Registration Act, the  

respondent could not be held liable on the ground that he had not  

verified the title of the vendor of the property alleged to have been  

sold.   The High Court, therefore, in exercise of its powers conferred  

under Section 482 of the CrPC, allowed the revision petitions and set  

aside the FIRs and the charge-sheets filed against the respondent in all  

the cases and the criminal cases registered against him were quashed.  

Aggrieved by the same, these criminal appeals have been filed by the  

State.

12. Shri Sidharth Dave, learned counsel appearing for the State,  

submitted that the High Court has committed an error in holding that  

the duty of the Registrar is only to register the sale deeds. Learned  

counsel further submitted that, in a given case, if it is established,  

prima facie, that the Registrar is also instrumental in aiding the  

execution of several sale deeds by fictitious persons so as to  

appropriate the benefit under the Package resulting loss to the State  

Exchequer, he is also liable, if found to have been abetted in  

committing the crime.  Learned counsel pointed out that it was after  

conducting a detailed enquiry by the District Collector and the

Page 13

13

Registrar of the Registration Department that charges were leveled  

against the respondent.  Learned counsel pointed out that such a large  

number of sale deeds could not have been executed without the  

knowledge or active connivance of the respondent.  Learned counsel  

appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no illegality in the  

order passed by the High Court which calls for interference by this  

Court in these appeals.   

13. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC  

does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. This Court has, in  

several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section  

482 CrPC, though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with  

caution.   The High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, should normally  

refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire  

facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not  

been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved,  

whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in  

their true perspective without sufficient material. In M.M.T.C. and  

Another v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Another  

(2002) 1 SCC 234, this Court held as follows:

Page 14

14

“The law is well settled that the power of quashing criminal  proceedings should be exercised very stringently and with  circumspection. It is settled law that at this stage, the Court is not  justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or  genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.  The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the  Court to act according to its whim or caprice…..”

In State of Orissa and Another v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13  

SCC 540, this Court held as follows:

“Exercise of power under Section 482 of the. Cr.P.C.  in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule.  The Section does not confer any new powers on the High  Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court  possessed before the enactment of the Cr.P.C. It envisages  three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction  may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order  under the Cr.P.C., (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of  court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is  neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule  which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No  legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide  for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore,  have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law  which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and  duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine  which finds expression in the section which merely  recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High  Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the  absence of any express provision, as inherent in their  constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the  right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of  justice on the principle "quando lex aliauid alicui concedit,  concedered videtur et id sine guo resipsae esse non potest"  (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that  without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers

Page 16

16

was alleged, registered various documents relating to the Project  

without verifying the credentials of the purchaser and seller and  

without examining that the land covered by the sale deeds is in  

existence or not or the lands belongs to the State Government.  Office  

of the Registrar, it was pointed out, had issued an O.M. dated  

28.4.2005 to all the Sub-Registrars stating that while registering the  

sale deeds in order to prevent registration of fake sale deeds to verify  

the identity of the seller for which he has to ask for photo identification  

proof from the seller such as PAN Card or Passport, which was not  

done.  Further it was noticed that certain deeds were executed in  

respect of the lands which were not wholly situated in his own sub-

districts and that the provisions of Section 64 of the Registration Act  

was not followed.

15. The respondent herein was functioning as Deputy Registrar at  

Khargone during the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2007 when more  

than 102 sale deeds relating to the same transaction were executed  

and all those documents were prima facie found to be forged so as to  

get the benefit of the Package which was meant for the Project  

affected persons/oustees displaced from the land. It was noticed,

Page 17

17

prima facie, that vendors and vendees were not the Project affected  

persons/oustees, but they wanted to avail of the benefit of the  

Package, thereby deceived the State Government as well as the  

Project affected persons/oustees.  The respondent was suspended  

from the service noticing that he was also instrumental and abetted in  

the commission of the crime.  The allegations raised in the charge-

sheets are prima facie allegations and the question of involvement of  

respondent has to be finally decided depending upon the evidence in  

the case and, at this moment, we are only concerned with the  

indications raised in the First Information Reports and charge-sheets.  

Allegation is that the forged sale deeds were executed for unlawful  

gain for which the respondent has also conspired and abetted the  

crime.  Further the charge-sheet also refers to Section 34 of the  

Registration Act which reads as follows:

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 person 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:

Page 18

18

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 (l) may be simultaneous or at  different times.

(3) The registering officer shall thereupon-

(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the  person 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,  assignee 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.

 16. In Jambu Prasad v. Mohammad Nawab Aftab Ali Khan AIR  

1941 PC 16 states that the object of this Section is to make it difficult  

for persons to commit frauds by means of registration under Act.  

Further there is a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act  

that official acts have been performed in accordance with the  

procedure laid down under the Registration Act.  Therefore, when a  

document has been duly executed there will be a presumption that it

Page 19

19

has been registered in accordance with law and the onus is on the  

prosecution to show that the respondent has abetted in committing the  

offence of criminal conspiracy in the crime and has misused his  

position and was a party to the fraud.   

17. Section 81 of the Registration Act deals with penalties which  

reads as follows:

“81. Penalty for incorrectly endorsing, copying, translating  or registering documents with intent to injure Every registering officer appointed under this Act and every  person employed in his office for the purposes of this Act, who,  being charged with the endorsing, copying, translating or  registering of any document presented or deposited under its  provisions, endorses, copies, translates or registers such  document in a manner which he knows or believes to be  incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely  that he may thereby cause injury, as defined in the Indian Penal  Code, to any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a  term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with  both.”

18. The question is whether the respondent was aware that such  

deeds were executed for getting unlawful gain, which may cause injury  

to another person as defined under Section 44 of the Indian Penal  

Code is a matter which can be established only on adducing evidence.  

19. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the magnitude of  

the crime, the number of documents alleged to have been executed

Page 20

20

fraudulently, the reports referred to in the charge-sheets and the  

involvement of the respondent etc. could be decided only if an  

opportunity is given to the prosecution.  The High Court, in such  

circumstances, was not justified in quashing all the First Information  

Reports and the charge-sheets in exercise of its powers under Section  

482 CrPC.  

20. We make it clear that whatever we have stated above are only  

prima facie observations which would not bind the trial Court while  

deciding the criminal cases.   The criminal appeals are accordingly  

allowed and the judgments of the High Court are set aside.

………………………………………..J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

……………………………………..J. (Dipak Misra)

New Delhi, September 26, 2012