The Sub-Registrar is a victim, not a bystander: a forged sale deed cannot be compromised away

Justice Rakesh Kainthla refuses to quash an FIR over a sale deed executed by an impostor, holding that the registering officer was affected by the misrepresentation and is entitled to object, and that forgery offences are not quashable on a private settlement.

A woman who co-owned land near Manali complained that her share had been sold without her: she had never appeared before the Sub-Registrar, and somebody else had put a thumb impression on the sale deed in her name. The forensic laboratory later matched that impression to a different woman altogether. Then the complainant reconciled with her co-owner and the accused asked the High Court to quash the FIR as a private matter settled between families. On 9 October 2026 Justice Rakesh Kainthla refused — because there was another person deceived in the transaction, and he was still objecting: the Sub-Registrar who registered the deed.

A sale deed, and a woman who was not there

The petitioners sought the quashing of FIR No. 146 of 2024, dated 28 August 2024, registered at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, for offences punishable under Sections 318(3), 319(2) and 11(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 418, 419, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, along with the consequential proceedings.

Their case was that the matter had been reported to the police because of misunderstandings, confusion and miscommunication between the parties, particularly on account of family disputes; that the informant had complained to the Sub-Registrar, Manali, who forwarded it to the police station; and that the dispute was private in nature and did not affect society at large.

The status report told it differently. The informant, Bali Devi, had complained to the Sub-Registrar that she was a co-owner of the land along with the petitioner. The petitioner and she had purportedly sold their share to a buyer for Rs 19,82,000. But Bali Devi had never appeared for the execution of the sale deed, and some other person had impersonated her. During interrogation the petitioner revealed that one Phagni Devi had impersonated Bali Devi; her thumb impressions were taken and sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory at Junga, and the report stated that the specimen impressions of Phagni Devi and the impressions appearing on the sale deed matched. Bali Devi, for her part, said she had reconciled the matter with the petitioner.

Who was deceived

The reasoning turns on identifying the person wronged, and the Court's answer is the registering officer.

On the material it could prima facie be believed that the sale deed was executed in the name of Bali Devi and that the petitioner Chobbe Ram had assisted in making a false document. He had produced the woman before the Sub-Registrar, and another person had identified her as Bali Devi. “The Sub-Registrar would not have executed the sale deed but for the representation made” that the woman present was Bali Devi. He was therefore not “a stranger having no concern with the matter”: he was made to register the deed on a representation he would not have acted on had the impostor not put her thumb impression in another woman's name.

From that the conclusion followed. The FIR cannot be quashed when the Sub-Registrar is objecting to it. And the investigation had revealed offences of forgery of the sale deed and of using the forged deed as genuine, which on binding Supreme Court authority cannot be quashed after a compromise.

The judgment then works through the authorities the petitioners had relied on and distinguishes each. Ganesh and Jagjit Singh explain the well-settled distinction between the informant and the victim. Gian Singh holds that offences involving the public at large should not be quashed. Anand Kumar holds that an informant who is not the victim cannot object to a compromise between the parties — but here the Sub-Registrar was a victim, affected by the misrepresentation and the forgery of the document, so that decision did not apply. Madan Mohan concerned an offence under Section 406, whereas this case concerns forgery of documents. B.N. John deals with quashing an FIR on merits and was not relevant, and Naushey Ali related to an offence under Section 307.

Order

The FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise effected between the parties. The petition failed and was dismissed.

The Court added the customary caveat with some care: the observations made are for the disposal of this petition and “will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case”. The investigation and any trial proceed on their own footing.

The practical point is worth noting for anyone drafting a quashing petition on a settlement. Where a document has been registered on a false identification, the parties to the land are not the only people the offence touches. The officer who was induced to act is a victim in his own right, and his objection is enough to keep the case alive.