Gift deed registration case: Karnataka HC rejects sub-registrar's plea to quash proceedings

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition of a sub-registrar in a case of cheating in registering two gift deeds.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that there was sufficient material to invoke CrPC Section 319 and bring the sub-registrar as accused in place of him being a witness.

A criminal case was registered based on a private complaint filed by one BN Sreekantaswamy, a resident of Bengaluru.

Also Read | K'taka HC stays transfer of 2.51 cr shares of TD Power System Ltd

It was stated that on March 11 and 14, 2013, two gift deeds were registered by sub-registrar A Raghavendra in respect to properties belonging to his elder sister, BN Sharadamba.

The sub-registrar claimed that he obtained Sharadamba's signature/thumb impression at her house on the said document. However, the complainant said Sharadamba was in the ICU for various illnesses between March 11 and 14 and presented supporting documents.

The complainant also alleged that the sub-registrar was involved in the fraud orchestrated by his mother, BN Kamalamma, and younger sister, BN Parvati, who were the beneficiaries of the gift deeds.

In the charge sheet, the police excluded A Raghavendra's name and referred to him as a witness. Meanwhile, the high court, while dismissing the petition filed by the other accused, allowed the trial court to take action against the sub-registrar under CrPC Section 319, provided that statutory requirements were met.

The sub-registrar challenged the April 20, 2023, order issued by the trial court that brought him in as an accused.

It was contended that private attendance is permitted by law, allowing a sub-registrar to visit the executant if they are unable to come to the office.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said it is the specific case of the petitioner that he had visited the residence for private attendance at the time when the executant was in the hospital.

“Therefore, the question that arises is from whom, where and when the petitioner took the signature of BN Sharadamba. It is the emphatic submission that it was not in the hospital. If that be so, from whom has he taken the signatures? If the matter is a fraud, it has to be tried.”

The court further said: “In the considered view of this court, the petitioner ought not to have been dropped from the array of accused when the charge sheet was filed, as it was a classic case where the petitioner has to come out clean in the trial. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been without rhyme or reason dragged back into the web of crime as an accused, thus deserves to be repelled.”