Registering Officer lacks adjudicatory power to verify title or refuse registration if procedural requirements are met.

The applicant executed a power of attorney in favor of Santosh Kumar Joshi for land in Dhungsil Talla. However, Joshi allegedly used this document to execute a sale deed for land in Dhungsil Malla in favor of respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5.

The applicant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the Sub-Registrar (respondent no. 2) and the purchasers (respondents 3-5) as additional accused.

The ACJM, Nainital rejected this application on 21.05.2025, a decision subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge, Nainital on 28.10.2025.

The applicant challenged these orders before the High Court via a criminal miscellaneous application.

Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offense.

K. Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and Others (2025), which established that a registering officer has no adjudicatory power to decide title and cannot refuse registration if procedural requirements are met.

S. Anand Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2026) and Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, the Court held that execution of a deed for property one does not own does not constitute forgery against the actual owner; rather, the purchaser is the aggrieved party in such transactions.

The Court reasoned that the Sub-Registrar cannot be held criminally liable for a lack of title in the executant, as the Registration Act, 1908, does not empower the officer to ascertain ownership before registration.

Regarding the purchasers (respondent nos. 3-5), the Court observed they are "bonafide purchasers" who paid consideration.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court noted that if a vendor sells property without title, the fraud is committed against the purchaser, not the original owner.

Therefore, a third party (the applicant) cannot maintain a criminal complaint of cheating against the purchasers in this context.

The Court found that the Magistrate had applied judicial mind to the evidence and correctly determined that no case for summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was made out.

The Court held that the registering officer is not responsible for title verification and the purchasers could not be summoned as co-accused based on the facts provided.

Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous application was dismissed.