In a significant legal development, three former sub-Registrars from Junnar, Dist. Pune, recently secured anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0298 of 2024. The case, registered on September 13, 2024, involves allegations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating). The applicants faced accusations of facilitating the illegal sale of forest land, which, according to the Range Forest Officer, should not have been registered.

The FIR arose from a complaint made by the Range Forest Officer, claiming that the accused facilitated the registration of sale deeds for forest land that was expressly prohibited by law. This led to serious charges against the applicants, who were performing their official duties at the time. In response to their apprehension of arrest, the sub-Registrars sought relief from the court.

Mihir Desai, the learned Senior Counsel representing the applicants, argued that the scope of inquiry mandated by Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, does not extend to verifying the legality of the transactions being registered. According to established case law, including the judgments in Ashwini Ashok Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra and Govind Ramling Solpure & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, the Registering Officers are not required to investigate the title of the property or ascertain whether the transferor is the legal owner.

The applicants contended that any instruction, such as the one issued by the Range Forest Officer in 2007, should be considered an executive directive and cannot override the statutory provisions set forth in the Registration Act. This argument emphasizes the principle that Registering Officers are tasked with specific responsibilities and are not liable for the legality of the property being transferred.

Upon reviewing the arguments, the court concluded that the applicants demonstrated a strong prima facie case in their favor. The judgment clarified that no criminal liability could be attributed to the sub-Registrars for performing their statutory duties under the Registration Act, as there was no evidence of wrongdoing, such as accepting bribes or acting beyond their legal purview. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Registration Act and its provisions, thereby rejecting the reliance on the 2007 communication from the Range Forest Officer.

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, outlining several conditions:

Each applicant must furnish a personal bond of ?15,000 and one or two sureties.

The applicants are required to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

They must refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The court also made it clear that violations of these conditions could result in the cancellation of their bail.

This case highlights the complexities at the intersection of statutory duties and allegations of misconduct. The ruling reinforces the boundaries of the responsibilities of Registering Officers while safeguarding their right to perform their duties without fear of unwarranted criminal liability. As this case progresses, it underscores the importance of clarity in legal frameworks governing property transactions, particularly in sensitive areas such as forest land.