Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.308 of 2026

Durai Mahalingam

... Petitioner/Accused No.

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu

Rep. by. the Inspector of Police,

Virudhunagar West Police Station,

Virudhunagar District.

Crime No. 127/2023 .... Respondent / Complainant

2. Ramamoorthy

.... Respondent /

Defacto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and to quash the final report in

CC No.646 of 2025 in Crime No.127 of 2023 pending on the file of

the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar in so far as the

petitioner/Accused No.10 alone is concerned.

For Petitioner: Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai,

For Mr.R.Rajmohan

For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravi,

Additional Public Prosecutor

1/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

For R-2 : Mr.M.Kannan

ORDER

Prologue:

The present Criminal Original Petition presents before this

Court an issue of considerable public importance touching upon the

integrity of public records, sanctity of registration machinery,

preservation of water bodies, and the extent of criminal

accountability of statutory registering authorities when allegations of

deliberate facilitation of fraudulent conveyances arise.

2. The petitioner, who served as Joint-II Sub Registrar,

Virudhunagar, seeks quashment of the criminal prosecution initiated

against him on the premise that a Sub Registrar merely performs a

ministerial act while registering documents and cannot be criminally

prosecuted for title disputes arising between private parties. The

prosecution and the de facto complainant, however, project a far

more serious narrative, namely, that the petitioner consciously

facilitated registration of forged and manipulated documents relating

not only to a disputed private property but also to an alleged

2/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

Government “Oorani” water body, in deliberate violation of statutory

mandates, Government notifications and registration safeguards.

3. The case therefore transcends an ordinary civil dispute over

title. The allegations strike at the institutional integrity of public

administration and the statutory duties of registering officers

functioning under the Registration Act, 1908.

4. In such circumstances, this Court is called upon to

determine whether the prosecution against the petitioner is so

inherently absurd, legally untenable, or devoid of foundational

materials so as to warrant exercise of inherent powers under Section

528 BNSS corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Case of the prosecution:

5. The prosecution case, as emerging from the final report and

materials collected during investigation, is that the petitioner herein,

while serving as Joint-II Sub Registrar, Virudhunagar, registered a

Gift Deed dated 10.02.2017 bearing Document No.356 of 2017

executed by A-1 in favour of A-2 to A-4 and simultaneously

3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

registered a Sale Agreement dated 10.02.2017 bearing Document No.

361 of 2017 executed by A-2 to A-4 in favour of A-6 and A-7.

6. According to the prosecution, Item No.1 of the property

covered under Document No.356 of 2017 pertains to T.S.No.43

classified as “Government Poromboke Oorani”, namely a public water

body. Item No.2 allegedly pertains to a private property claimed by

the wife of the second respondent/de facto complainant.

7. It is alleged that the accused persons, in conspiracy with

one another, fabricated and manipulated revenue records, Town

Survey Land Register extracts and Field Measurement Book sketches

for the purpose of creating fraudulent title over the properties and

thereafter secured registration of the impugned documents through

the petitioner/Sub Registrar.

8. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner

deliberately relied upon manual Town Survey Register extracts

despite a Gazette Notification issued by the District Collector,

Virudhunagar dated 25.11.2003 published on 05.01.2004

4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

mandating reliance only upon computerized land records under the

Tamil Nilam Scheme.

9. The prosecution also alleges that the petitioner failed to

verify crucial encumbrance records from the year 1932 onwards,

ignored glaring discrepancies in survey numbers, accepted

manipulated Field Measurement Book sketches containing

overwriting and alterations, and consciously facilitated registration of

documents involving Government water body lands prohibited under

Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

10. According to the prosecution, the Town Survey Register

extracts annexed with the impugned deeds were themselves forged

and fabricated. The statement of LW21/Deputy Tahsildar allegedly

reveals that no municipal official by name “Arumugam Sub

Inspector”, who purportedly issued the records, ever existed during

the relevant period.

11. The prosecution would therefore contend that the

petitioner was not a passive registering authority but an active

5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

conspirator who knowingly facilitated land grabbing operations

through abuse of official position.

12. On completion of investigation, final report came to be filed

against several accused persons including the petitioner/A-10 for

offences under Sections 34, 120-B, 447, 465, 468 and 471 IPC

corresponding to Sections 3(5), 61(2), 329(3), 336(2), 336(3) and

340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Grounds for quash:

13. The petitioner seeks quashment mainly on the following

grounds:

(i) The petitioner merely discharged statutory duties as Sub

Registrar and had no role in any alleged conspiracy;

(ii) A Sub Registrar cannot adjudicate title disputes and

performs only ministerial functions;

(iii) No overt act or mens rea is attributed against the petitioner

except registration of documents;

(iv) Rule 55 of the Registration Rules, 1908, does not require

the Sub Registrar to conduct roving enquiry into ownership;

6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

(v) The allegations are vague and unsupported by legally

admissible materials;

(vi) Section 86 of the Registration Act, 1908, protects actions

bona fide performed by registering officers;

(vii) The alleged classification of property as water body

emerged only subsequently based on Tahsildar report dated

18.02.2022;

(viii) Civil litigation concerning title is already pending and

therefore criminal prosecution amounts to abuse of process;

(ix) No ingredients of forgery offences are attracted against the

petitioner;

(x) The prosecution is hit by the principles laid down in State

of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

.

Arguments on either side:

14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner, being a statutory registering authority, cannot be

prosecuted merely because a document subsequently becomes

subject matter of civil or criminal dispute. It was contended that the

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

Registration Department does not adjudicate title and the function of

the Sub Registrar is only administrative and ministerial in nature.

15. The learned counsel would further submit that the

petitioner had acted strictly in accordance with the Registration Act

and Rules, 1908, and there existed no material whatsoever to infer

criminal conspiracy. It was further argued that the prosecution seeks

to criminalise performance of official duties and thereby expose

registering officers to unwarranted prosecutions.

16. The learned counsel submitted that the FIR, final report

and witness statements do not contain any direct allegation

establishing mens rea or fraudulent intention on the part of the

petitioner. It was also argued that Section 86 of the Registration Act,

1908, grants statutory protection to registering officers acting in

good faith.

17. The learned counsel further contended that the alleged

classification of property as Government water body emerged only

subsequently and therefore no criminal liability could retrospectively

8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

be fastened upon the petitioner. The learned counsel would submit

that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and continuation of

criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law.

18. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal

Side) and the learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent/de facto complainant vehemently opposed the petition.

They would submit that the petitioner cannot seek shelter under the

guise of ministerial functions when the prosecution materials

disclose deliberate dereliction, conscious suppression and active

facilitation of fraudulent registration.

19. It was argued that Section 22-A of the Registration Act,

1908, imposes mandatory duty upon the registering authority to

refuse registration of Government lands and public properties. The

respondents further submitted that the petitioner deliberately relied

upon manual records prohibited under Government notification and

ignored computerized records which would have revealed the true

classification of the property as Government Oorani.

9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

20. It was contended that the Field Measurement Book

sketches contained obvious overwriting and alterations which the

petitioner consciously ignored. The learned counsel for the second

respondent placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v.

S.P. Velayutham

2

to contend that registering officers cannot claim

immunity by projecting themselves as mere mechanical

functionaries.

21. It was further argued that conspiracy is rarely proved

through direct evidence and may legitimately be inferred from

conduct, omissions and surrounding circumstances. The learned

counsel would further submit that the petitioner's conduct in

bypassing mandatory scrutiny, accepting suspicious records and

facilitating simultaneous conveyances involving valuable public and

private lands prima facie discloses criminal conspiracy warranting

full-fledged trial.

22022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

Point for consideration

22. The point arising for consideration is whether the

allegations and materials available in the final report are so

inherently improbable, legally unsustainable, or devoid of

foundational ingredients as to warrant exercise of inherent

jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the criminal

proceedings against the petitioner/A-10?

Analysis:

23. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS

corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and

must be exercised sparingly. The principles governing quash

jurisdiction are well settled in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

3

. At

the stage of quash, the Court is not expected to conduct meticulous

appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed factual issues.

24. If the materials collected during investigation prima facie

disclose ingredients of offences, criminal prosecution cannot be

interdicted merely because the accused offers plausible explanations.

31992 Supp(1) SCC 335

11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

25. The principal defence raised by the petitioner is that the

role of a Sub Registrar is merely ministerial. This contention cannot

be accepted in absolute terms.

26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction

Company (India) Ltd. v. S.P. Velayutham

4

categorically observed

that if registering officers are treated as performing purely

mechanical functions without independent application of mind, even

Government properties may be fraudulently conveyed.

27. The statutory scheme under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act, 1908, specifically obligates refusal of registration

relating to Government properties and prohibited categories of land.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek blanket immunity merely by

asserting that he acted mechanically.

28. The prosecution materials disclose several circumstances

requiring adjudication during trial. The prosecution alleges that the

petitioner relied upon manual Town Survey Register extracts despite

4Supra 2

12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

Government notification mandating reliance only upon computerized

records.

29. The prosecution further alleges that the manual records

themselves were forged and issued by non-existent officials. The

prosecution also alleges existence of visible overwriting and

alterations in the Field Measurement Book sketches.

30. Whether the petitioner consciously ignored such

discrepancies, whether such omissions were innocent or deliberate,

and whether such conduct amounts to conspiracy are all matters

requiring evidentiary adjudication. These issues cannot be

conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

31. The petitioner repeatedly contends absence of direct

evidence. However, criminal conspiracy is ordinarily hatched in

secrecy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivnarayan

Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra

5

held that

conspiracy may legitimately be inferred from acts, omissions and

surrounding circumstances. Similarly, in Yash Pal Mittal v. State

5(1980) 2 SCC 465

13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

of Punjab

6

it was held that every conspirator need not participate at

every stage.

32. The prosecution materials in the present case, including

alleged violation of mandatory procedures, suspicious revenue

extracts, simultaneous transactions and disputed public property

involvement, cannot be brushed aside as wholly absurd or

impossible.

33. Merely because civil proceedings are pending, criminal

prosecution does not automatically become unsustainable. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.

7

categorically held that availability of civil remedy is no ground to

quash criminal proceedings.

34. In the present case, allegations extend beyond private title

dispute and encompass alleged fraudulent registration involving

public water body lands. Therefore, the civil nature of certain

6(1997) 4 SCC 540

7(2020) 14 SCC 552

14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

disputes does not eclipse the criminal dimensions alleged by the

prosecution.

35. The protection under Section 86 of the Registration Act,

1908, is not absolute. Such protection operates only where actions

are performed bona fide and in good faith. Whether the petitioner

acted bona fide or consciously facilitated fraudulent registration is

itself the core issue requiring trial. Such disputed factual

determination cannot be conclusively adjudicated in quash

proceedings.

36. This Court is unable to hold that the prosecution is

manifestly attended with mala fides or that the allegations are

inherently improbable. The materials collected during investigation

disclose prima facie circumstances warranting judicial scrutiny

during trial.

37. At this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial or

enter upon appreciation of disputed evidence. The petitioner is at

15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

liberty to establish his innocence before the Trial Court during full-

fledged trial.

Epilogue:

38. Public confidence in the sanctity of registration machinery

forms one of the foundational pillars of civil administration.

Registration offices are not intended to become gateways through

which forged claims, manipulated records and encroachments upon

public properties obtain legal camouflage.

39. Equally, criminal prosecution of public servants cannot be

casually sustained in absence of foundational materials. The balance

between statutory protection and public accountability must

therefore be carefully preserved.

40. In the present case, this Court finds that the prosecution

materials disclose sufficient prima facie circumstances warranting

trial. The allegations cannot be dismissed as inherently absurd or

legally untenable at this preliminary stage.

16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

41. The petitioner seeks an adjudication upon disputed

questions of fact which fall squarely within the province of the Trial

Court and not within the limited inherent jurisdiction under Section

528 BNSS.

42. In fine, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

43. However, considering the official status of the petitioner

and the nature of allegations, the personal appearance of the

petitioner before the Trial Court shall stand dispensed with except on

the following occasions:

(i) furnishing copies;

(ii) framing of charges;

(iii) questioning under Section 351 BNSS;

(iv) pronouncement of judgment; and

(v) whenever specifically required by the Trial Court.

44. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case

uninfluenced by any observations made in this order, which are

17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

confined solely for the purpose of deciding the present quash

petition.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Virudhunagar.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Virudhunagar West Police Station,

Virudhunagar District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

18/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.308 of 2026

01.06.2026

19/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis