Uttarakhand High Court
State vs Unknown on 5 May, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C-528 No. 2059 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Brief Holder for
the State.
3. Mr. H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for
respondent no. 2.
4. Mr. Vijay Bhatt and Mr. Harshit Sanwal,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.
5. The present criminal misc. application
has been filed by the applicants challenging
the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by ACJM,
Nainital in Criminal Case No. 3264 of 2019,
State Vs. Santosh Kumar Joshi, whereby, the
application moved by the applicant under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the
respondent nos. 2 to 5 has been rejected and
also the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by
Session Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision
No. 14 of 2025.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants would
submit that since it has come in evidence that
the power of attorney was executed by the
applicant in favour of Santosh Kumar Joshi in
respect of their bhumidhari land situated in
Dhungsil Talla, but, on the basis of this power
of attorney Santosh Kumar Joshi has executed
the sale deed in favour of all above private
respondents in respect of the land situated in
Dhungsil Malla. It is further submitted that
both the Dhungsil Talla and Dhungsil Malla are
separate villages and as such the private
respondent no. 2 was the then Sub-Registrar,
at the time of which, the said sale deed was
registered, therefore, she ought to have
perused the revenue records before
permitting the said sale deed to be registered.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.
3, 4 and 5 would further submit that
respondents are bonafide purchasers and the
sale deed was executed after putting due
consideration. Thus, the orders passed by the
learned Magistrate concerned and Sessions
Judge concerned does not warrant any
interference. Learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have relied upon a
judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of S. Anand Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 702.
For ready reference, paragraph no. 24 of the
aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
“24. As a matter of fact, even if the allegation of the
respondent No.2-complainant, that the Will was
forged, is found to be substantiated, the purchasers
of the property would be the persons aggrieved
because in such circumstances, their title over the
property in question would land in dispute,
having Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 12177 of
2022 being acquired from the vendor who used the
so- called fabricated will to execute the registered
sale deeds. The situation at hand is squarely covered
by the judgment in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim
and Others v. State of Bihar and Another.4, wherein
this Court held as below: –
“20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a
property claiming ownership thereto, it may be
possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to
allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a
false representation of ownership and fraudulently
induced him to part with the sale consideration. But
in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser.
On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-
accused.
21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of
the accused tried to deceive him either by making a
false or misleading representation or by any other
action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered
him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to
deliver any property or to consent to the retention
thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him
to do or omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the
complainant allege that the first appellant pretended
to be the complainant while executing the sale
deeds.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by
the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the
second accused or the second accused by reason of
being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth
accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and
stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived
the complainant in any manner.
…………………………………………………………
23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a
person, purporting to convey a property which is not
his, as his property, is not making a false document
and therefore not forgery, we should not be
understood as holding that such an act can never be
a criminal offence. If a person sells a property
knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby
defrauds the person who purchased the property, the
person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may
complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent
act of cheating. But a third party who is not the
purchaser under the deed may not be able to make
such complaint.”
8. Mr. H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for
respondent no. 2 would submit that the
Registry Officer is not responsible for the title
and he/she is not empowered to go into the
question of the title of the person executing
the document for transferring the property.
He has no adjudicatory power to decide
whether the executants have any title.
Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of K. Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and Others, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 740. For ready reference,
Paragraph no. 15 of the aforesaid judgment is
extracted hereinbelow:-
“15. The registering officer is not concerned with the
title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory
power to decide whether the executant has any title.
Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease
in respect of a land in respect of which he has no
title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register
the document if all the procedural compliances are
made and the necessary stamp duty as well as
registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here
that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the
function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering
Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to
the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once
the registering authority is satisfied that the parties
to the document are present before him and the
parties admit execution thereof before him, subject
to making procedural compliances as narrated
above, the document must be registered. The
execution and registration of a document have the
effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that
the executant possesses. If the executant has no
right, title, or interest in the property, the registered
document cannot effect any transfer.”
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
10. Perusal of the impugned order dated
21.05.2025 reveals that the evidence
collected was placed before the learned court
below, which, after applying its judicial mind,
has rightly rejected the application of the
applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
11. The court concerned has considered &
discussed all relevant aspects. Thus, the view
taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate
concerned cannot be faulted. This Court does
not find any infirmity or illegality in the
impugned order dated 21.05.2025 passed by
ACJM, Nainital in Criminal Case No. 3264 of
2019, State Vs. Santosh Kumar Joshi and also
the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by
Session Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision
No. 14 of 2025. Hence, this Court does not
find any reason to interfere with the
impugned orders.
12. Accordingly, the criminal misc.
application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Mahra J.)
05.05.2026
Ujjwal
