- (1.) ON 23.11.2005, the following order was passed:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner says that charge under section 420 IPC has been framed against the Sub Registrar, who registered the sale deed in discharge of his duties under section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908. Reliance is placed on judgments of this court in Ved Parkash Gupta v. State of Punjab, Crl. Revision No.636 of 1998, decided on 3.8.1998, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and another v. Krishan Gopal Kataria and another, 1997(1) PLJ 308 and Hari Singh v. Sub Registrar, Narnaul, 1998(3) PLR 787, taking the view that mere registration of the document by the Sub Registrar in discharge of his official duties, will not be a criminal offence as the Sub Registrar could not refuse to register the document. Learned counsel for the State seeks time to examine whether there is any distinguishing feature in the present case, what is the stand of the department about desirability of prosecuting the petitioner and whether any law has been framed or proposed to be framed to regulate management of religious endowments, property of which is said to be vested in the State by some executive order. Crl. Rev. No.2430 of 2004 -2- List again on 18.1.2006. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the State."
(2.) COUNSEL for the State says that no appeal was filed in the case of Ved Parkash (supra) and the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable. Accordingly, following the judgments referred to above, charge framed against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is discharged. The petition is disposed of.;