Madras High CourtWP(MD)/12333/2024allowed

Steffy.K v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By

2025-09-12Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan4 pages

WP(MD) NO. 12333 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN WP(MD) NO. 12333 of 2024 Steffy.K W/o.Jeganath Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - II, Chennai.

(Cr.No.68/2021)

2. The District Registrar (Administration) O/o.The District Registrar, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

3. The Sub - Registrar O/o.The Sub - Registrar, Boothapandi, Kanniyakumari District.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent - The Sub Registrar, Boothapandi dated 26.03.2024 in No.100/2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the sale deed or any other deed of conveyance executed by the petitioner in respect of her property situated in Sy.No.307/1A1A1, Chiramadam Village, Thovalai Taluk, Sub - Registrar, Boothapandi, Kanniyakumari District without any reference to the objection petition submitted by the 1st respondent - The Inspector of Police, CCB - II, Chennai and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Ajin Singh For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader for R2 and R3 Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (crl.side) for R1

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the petition-mentioned property. She also wants to alienate the same for the purpose of higher education of her son. When the petitioner approached the third respondent in this regard, the third respondent informed the petitioner in writing that in view of the communication received from the first respondent, he would not be able to register the document presented for registration. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed 3.It is seen that the petitioner was implicated as accused in Crime No.68 of 2021 on the file of the CCB - II, Chennai. The case has also been charge sheeted and taken on file. The petitioner is said to have misrepresented as if she is a Government counsel and that she can obtain government employment as she has political influence.

In other words, the petitioner is said to have indulged in jobracketing. 4.The question is whether the first respondent police have authority to call upon the registering authority not to register any document. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the decision reported in 2009-3-LW.

(R.G.Rathinam v. The Sub Registrar) and the order dated 28.04.2022 in WP No. 30874 of 2018. It has been held therein that unless the property has been attached by a competent authority under the relevant statute, the police officials cannot seek to restrain the registering authority from discharging his statutory functions. The impugned communication is patently without jurisdiction. It is quashed. 5.This writ petition is allowed. No costs.

12-09-2025 To 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - II, Chennai. (Cr.No.68/2021) 2.The District Registrar (Administration) O/o.The District Registrar, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

3. The Sub - Registrar O/o.The Sub - Registrar, Boothapandi, Kanniyakumari District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

Skm WP(MD) NO. 12333 of 2024 12.09.2025