Rejection of application u/s.156(3) of CrPC does not bar the complainant to file second regular complaint case

Rejection of a complaint at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not debar institution of second regular complaint. It would be post-cognizance stage, if the

Magistrate takes cognizance on the original complaint or after rejection at pre-cognizance stage, if second complaint is filed by the complainant. In genuine cases, if averments of the complainant are true and trustworthy or these are found so after preliminary inquiry, then the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may direct the S.H.O. to register F.I.R. and conduct investigation on the basis of averments of the complaint.[Para. No.7]

    The Magistrate may dismiss the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. if by way of instituting complaint, defence version is created to absolve the complainant from the case registered earlier or on the basis of allegations made in the complainant, if dispute is purely of civil nature or the Magistrate considers that the complaint is false and frivolous. The Magistrate has to power to test the truth and veracity of the allegations levelled against the proposed accused persons and if there is no substance in the averments of the complainant then at pre-cognizance stage, the complaint may be dismissed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.[Para No.8]

...........

     On the basis of facts narrated in the complaint, the complainant is capable to adduce evidence regarding alleged incident of misappropriation of property of government school and trees, etc., by the respondents. The respondents abused the complainant indicating his caste as per the facts narrated in the complaint. These facts may be proved by adducing evidence by the complainant. This fact that respondents are pressurizing the complainant to compromise the matter is within the knowledge of complainant, it may also be proved by the complainant by adducing evidence.[Para No.11]

...........

     On the basis of above discussions, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.[Para No.13]

...........

    Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri has considered the facts on the basis of which complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was instituted by the complainant. At post cognizance stage the complainant may institute regular complaint on the basis of which, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri may record statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the evidence under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and proceed according to law on regular complaint if instituted by the complainant. The impugned order dated 15.12.2020 will have no effect on the regular complaint, if instituted by the complainant[Para No.15]

Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration of document only on the ground that the title of the transferor, in his opinion, is defective

Learned APP submitted that the 7/12 extracts of the lands which were transferred showed the words "Akari Pad" in the occupant's column which indicate that the lands belonged to the government. Sub-Registrar ought to have verified the 7/12 extracts (revenue records) and should have refused the registration of the sale deeds. Selling the government lands amounted to a fraud on the government and by registering the sale deeds without verification of revenue records the applicant has committed an offence. It is settled principle of law that entries in the revenue records (7/12 extracts in case of agricultural lands and property register cards in case of urban lands) are made for fiscal purposes. They do not confer nor take away the title. Entries in the 7/12 extracts, though may have some presumptive value under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, are not by themselves proof of title nor do they confer title. Therefore, the mere fact that the properties were shown as "Akari Pad" that by itself was not the proof that the government was the owner of the lands. Even assuming that the government was the owner of the lands, as I have already indicated earlier section 34 of the Act does not require nor does it empower the Sub-Registrar to enquire into the title and to satisfy himself about the title of the transferor. Under the Act the Sub-Registrar is not required, nay not entitled, to ask the transferor to produce 7/12 extracts, property register extract or the like showing the transferor to be the owner of the property.

If he refuses registration of a document on the ground that the revenue records do not show the name of the transferor as the owner he would be exceeding his powers under the Act. If all other requirements of registration prescribed by the Act and the Rules are complied with, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse the registration of a document only on the ground that the title of the transferor, in his opinion, is defective, or that the name of transferor is not shown as owner in the revenue records.[Para No.5]