1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.---Applicant Sarfraz Ahmed s/o Muhammad Yousif has filed this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. With the request that proceedings pending against the applicant in pursuance of registration of F.I.R. No,5 of 2004, registered by Assistant Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, Hyderabad, under sections 161, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 511/34, P.P.C. r/w section 5(2) of Act-II of 1947, may be quashed.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that in year 1997, applicant was posted as Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad. It is further stated that there was a dispute in between the Irrigation Department and Auqaf Department over the ownership of residential quarters situated on City Survey Nos. A/2487 and 2498 hereinafter referred to as the disputed quarters). That to resolve that dispute, in the year 2000 the City Survey Department conducted demarcation and showed the land over which the disputed quarters are situated as the property of the Irrigation department. It is further stated that subsequently on the request of Auqaf Department a second demarcation was also conducted.
3. This time the disputed quarters were declared the property of the Auqaf department. After declaring that the disputed quarters are the property of Auqaf department, the said department sold out one quarter to co-accused Allah Warayo and let out the other quarter to co-accused Afzal on rent. It is further stated that one quarter out of two was initially allotted to one Hussain an employee of Irrigation Department, but subsequently when this quarter was declared the property of Auqaf Department, his brother managed its purchase from Auqaf Department. The allegation against the applicant is that he registered mala fidely the sale-deed in respect of one quarter executed by Auqaf Department in favour of Allah Warayo and thereafter the other sale-deed executed by Allah Warayo in favour of Nawaz Arain. Thereafter the F.I.R. Of the case i.e, crime No, 5 of 2004 was registered against the applicant and others. The applicant has requested ' for quashment of the proceedings to the extent of his involvement as observed earlier.
4. ' Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Assistant A.G. For the State and perused the record.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submitted approaching the Trial Court by filing application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. An accused is entitled to move application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
6. Before the Honourable High Court. In this regard he relied upon 2000 SCM R 122. He further submitted that applicant being Sub-Registrar at the relevant time was bound to register the sale- deed, as the same was executed by the Auqaf Department, which was declared owner of the same and furthermore extract of City Survey Record was also available with the sale-deed showing that the Auqaf Department is the owner of the suit quarter. That the applicant has not committed any offence or violated any law at the relevant time, on the contrary, he has performed the duty assigned to him under the law. He referred to section 22 of the Registration Act. That further allowing the proceeding before the trial Court will be an exercise in futile and will also an abuse of process of the law as there is no possibility of the accused/ applicant being convicted. He, therefore, requested for grant of instant application and quashment of the proceedings initiated in pursuance of recording of F.I.R. No,5 of 2004 to the extent of the applicant.
7. ' Learned Assistant A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the State has opposed this application on the ground that the applicant is required to have approached in the first instance to the Trial Court and on case of refusal of the relief he can approach this Court, but he cannot directly approach this Court for quashment of the proceedings, however, the learned A.A-G. Has not produced any law in rebuttal of the case-law cited by learned counsel for the applicant. Learned Assistant A.-G.
8. Requested for rejection of this application.
9. From the above noted discussion it is clear that applicant has performed the legal duties assigned to him, as the sale-deed was supported with the required documents, therefore, he was legally bound to register the sale-deed. He has not committed any violation of any law, therefore, this involvement in the afore-noted F.I.R. Is, without any justification. Furthermore if the proceedings are allowed to continue against the applicant I am of the clear opinion that the same will be an amount to abuse of the process of law, therefore, the same requires quashment. I therefore, hereby allow the application under consideration and quash the proceedings pending against the applicant under F.I.R. No,5 of 2004 before the, trial Court.
10. ' Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,S-132 of 2006 stands disposed of accordingly.
11. Impugned .