STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSURENDRA KORI

                         [2012] 8 S.C.R. 858


A                  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                  v.
                          SURENDRA KORI
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 2012)
                       SEPTEMBER 26, 2012
B
        [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

         CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

c       s.482 - Exercise of inherent power by High Court -
    Explained.

        s.482 - Petition seeking to quash FIR - FIR against
   respondents for offences punishable ulss.420, 467, 468, 471
   rlw ss.34 and 1208 /PC and ss.34 and 81 of Registration Act
D - Allegations of registration of fake sale deeds on fictitious
   documents to avail of the Special Rehabilitation Package
   meant for oustees of Sardar Sarovar Project - FIR quashed
   by High Court- Held: Respondent was functioning as Deputy
   Registrar during the relevant period when more than 102 sale
E 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 personsloustees displaced from the land -
   Respondent was alleged, to have registered various
F documents relating to the Project without verifying the
  credentials of the purchasers and sellers and without
  examining that the land covered by the sale deeds was in
  existence or not or the lands belonged to the State
  Government - Further it was noticed that certain deeds were
G executed in respect of the lands which were not wholly situated
  in his own sub-districts and that the provisions of s.64 of the
  Registration Act were not followed - It was noticed, prima facie,
  that vendors and vendees were not the Project affected
  personsloustees, but they wanted to avail of the benefit of the
H                               858
  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRA                   859
                  KORI
Package and thereby deceived the State Government as well A
as the Project affected personsloustees - Respondent was
suspended from the service noticing that he was also
instrumental and abetted in the commission of the crime -
 Allegation is that the forged sale deeds were executed for
unlawful gain for which the respondent has also conspired B
and abetted the crime - In view of the magnitude of the crime,
the number of documents alleged to have been executed
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 -High Court, in c
 such circumstances, was not justified in quashing all the First
 Information Reports and the charge-sheets in exercise of its
powers uls. 482 - Judgments of High Court are set aside.

     M. M. T. C. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma
(P) Ltd. & Anr. 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 265 = 2002 (1) sec D
234; State of Orissa and Another v. Saro} Kumar Sahoo
2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 548 =(2005) 13 SCC 540 and Eicher
Tractors Ltd. v. Harihar Singh (2006) 12 SCC 763 relied on.

    Jambu Prasad v. Mohammad Nawab Aftab Ali Khan              E
AIR 1941 PC 16 referred to.

                     Case Law Reference:

     2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 265 relied on             para 13
                                                               F
     2005 (5 ) Suppl. SCR 548 Relied on            para 13
     (2006) 12 sec 763 .          Relied on        para 13
     AIR 1941 PC 16               Referred to      para 16

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal                 G
Appeal No. 1508 of 2012.

    From the Judgment & Order 22.01.2009 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore in Miscellaneous
Criminal Case No. 1073 of 2008.                                H
     860       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A                                 WITH

    C.A. Nos. 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516,
    1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526,
    1527, 1528, 1529, 1530, 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534, 1535, 1536,
B   1537,~538, 1539, 1540, 1541, 1542, 1543, 1544, 1545, 1546,
    1547, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1555, 1556,
    1557, 1558, 1559, 1560 and 1561 of 2012.

        Sidharth Dave, Abhimanyu Singh, C.D. Singh for the
    Appellant.
c
           Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad for the Respondent.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered

                               ORDER
D
           1. Leave granted.

           2. Heard learned counsel on either side.

         3. We are disposing of all these fifty four appeals by a
E   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.
F
         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 1208 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')
G   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
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRA KORI 861


connected matters. In order to properly appreciate the            A
correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the High
Court, it is necessary to refer to few facts.

     5. State of Madhya Pradesh had introduced a Special
Rehabilitation Package (for short 'Package') for those persons 8
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 C
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 D
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 E
 complaint before the Narmada Valley Development Authority
 regarding registration of fake sale deeds for claiming the
 benefit of the Package.

     6. The Collector, District Khargone, vide its letter dated   F
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 G
     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 H
    862      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A         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
8
    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
C 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:

D         "12 ........... Reference: - received the letter no. 791 dated
          11.9.2007 of the Collector, Khargon for rtecessary action.
          Regarding the aforesaid subject, it is said that name -
         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
E
         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
F        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
G       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
H       Pokharbujurg, tehsil Bhikhangaun, dist. Khargon. On the
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRA KORI 863


    basis of the said forged registration he has committed             A
    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/            B
    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            c
    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.         D

      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.
                                                                       E
    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   F
    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         G
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                     H
    864        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 8 S.C.R.


A   (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.
B
          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
c         to the property situated in other tehsils of the district and
          Rs.10/- under the article-10 of the said table.

          3. Under the section-30(1) of the Registration Act 1908 the
          Sub Registrar, head quarter, has not sent memos to the
D         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
E         No. 2822/taklone/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.361 O/taklone/2004 dated
F      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
G      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.
H      6. In the deeds the photo copies of the certificates of the
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRA KORI 865


    Land Acquisition Officer have been accepted instead of          A
    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."
                                                                    B
     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        C
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:
                                                                    D
    '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-   E
    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
                                                                    F
    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)     G
    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         H
    866       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A          basis of the said forged registration he has comrnitted
           offence after putting 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
B         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
c         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
D
          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
E         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
F         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
G 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 the
  documents which were brought before him for registration.
H Further, it was also pointed out that the respondent had no
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRA KORI 867


knowledge about the alleged forgery or the fraudulent manner          A
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       B
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         C
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       D
deeds and there was nothing to show respondent's involvement
in getting those sale deeds executed. The Court held that 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      E
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 Fl Rs and the charge-sheets
filed against the respondent in all the cases and the criminal
cases registered against him were quashed. Aggrieved by the           F
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   G
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             H
    868       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2012] 8 S.C.R.


A 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 Registrar of
  the Registration Department that charges were leveled against
  the respondent. Learned counsel pointed out that such a large
B 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.
c       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
D 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
E 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:

          "The law is well settled that the power of quashing criminal
F         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
G
          whim or caprice ..... "

        In State of Orissa and Another v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
    (2005) 13 SCC 540, this Court held as follows:

H               "Exercise of power under Section 482 of the. Cr.P .C.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRA KORI 869


    in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. A
    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 B
    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           c
     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 D
     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 E
     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 under the section, the court does
     not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent F
     jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be
     exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only
     when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
     down in the section itself.. ... "
                                                                    G
     This Court, again, in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Harihar Singh
(2006) 12 sec 763, held as follows:

    "When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
    Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an
                                                                   H
    870      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A         enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not
          or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation
          would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial
          Judge."

         14. We are of the view that the principles laid down by this
8
   Court in the above mentioned judgments would squarely apply
   to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We are in
  these cases concerned with the execution of several fictitious
   sale deeds the purpose of which was to make unlawful gain.
C Special Rehabilitation Project as already indicated was
   introduced to give cash compensation to the oustees and
   Project affected families which are an inter-state Project of four
   States involving Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and
   Gujarat. The Rehabilitation and resettlement is governed by the
   Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWBT) Award. The
D respondent, it 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
E 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
F 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.

G        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
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRA KORI 871


displaced from the land. It was noticed, prima facie, that A
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 B
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      c
Reports and charge-sheets. Allegation is that the for:ied 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:
                                                                 D
     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          E
     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                 F
     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     G
     under section 25, the document may be registered.

     (2) Appearances under sub-section (I) may be
     simultaneous or at different times.
                                                                    H
             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 8 S.C.R.


A        (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
B
         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
c        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.
D
         (5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees or
         orders.

       16. In Jambu Prasad v. Mohammad Nawab Aftab Ali
E 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
F the Registration Act. Therefore, when a document has been
  duly executed there will be a presumption that it 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
G 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
H       or registering documents with intent to injure Every
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SURENDRA KORI 873


    registering officer appointed under this Act and every A
    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 B
    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."                   c
     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
                                                                   D
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 fraudulently, the reports referred to in the
charge-sheets and the involvement of the respondent etc. could     E
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.
                                                                   F
     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.
                                                                   G
R.P.                                         Appeals allowed.