AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present petition is for quashing the FIR dated 08.02.2018 bearing No.65/18 lodged by Tehsildar Smt. B. Ekka.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner had purchased certain land i.e. Khasra No.390/2 admeasuring area 0.60 acres and Khasra
No.390/4 admeasuring area 0.50 acres from Natthuram and Mojelal by a registered sale deed. The allegation is that the description of the property
was shown in the sale deed that it is 50 meter inside from the national highway but actually it is adjacent to the national highway. Consequently, there
has been a deliberate avoidance of the stamp duty by undervaluing the property.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said allegations are completely false that he has described the property that it is 50 meter inside
the national highway and the stamp duty if any has not been paid it can be recovered under Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act and no offence is
made out in the Indian Stamp Act.
Perused the FIR. The FIR shows that allegations are that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 390/02 & 390/04 was shown to be at a distance of the
National Highway. Consequently, the property was undervalued and it caused loss of Rs.221222/- as the lands are situated adjacent to the National
Highway. It is alleged that thereby false affidavit and declaration was given by the petitioner.
The Copy of the sale deed is also placed on record, wherein description of the property is shown as 50 meter inside from the National Highway.
The affidavit also shows the similar fact. Therefore, if the actual property is situated adjacent to the National Highway then certainly there has been
mis-description of the declaration. The recovery of the deficit stamp duty charges operates in the different arena and it is for the recovery of the
deficit amount of the stamp duty while registration of sale deed. When those are produced before the Sub-Registrar for registration, in such
eventuality the role of the Sub-Registrar, who normally inspects the property to calculate the value also becomes relevant. It is also alleged that the
land which is purchased, the ownership belongs to the government. Consequently, if the FIR is quashed at this stage any enquiry contemplated would
be suppressed and therefore enquiry cannot be nipped in the bud. After going through the FIR prima facie it appears that the consortium efforts have
been made by the petitioner and the others at the time of registration to cause loss to the government which needs investigation.
The petition has no merits. It is accordingly dismissed.