- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 3781 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3781 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D. P. SATHISHA S/O SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA D G AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560001. 2. SRI AFROZ KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR SAAB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO. 57/1, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, NEAR MASJID STREET, SRK GARDEN, TILAK NAGAR, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M N ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VIRUPAKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 3781 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.71/2024, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 120B, 420, 464, 468, 471 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NELAMANGALA, CASE REGISTERED BY NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION AT NELAMANGALA / RESPONDENT NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner‑accused No. 3, who is under investigation for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 464, 465, 471, and 468 of the IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The 2nd respondent lodged the First Information Report (FIR), alleging that Accused No. 1, by impersonating the complainant and forging his signature, registered a sale deed in favour of Accused No. 2 over immovable property belonging to the respondent. The allegation against Accused No. 3 is that he conspired with the other accused in fabricating that sale deed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the absence of any direct or indirect evidence to substantiate the conspiracy allegation, the registration of an FIR against Accused No. 3 is impermissible. He further - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 3781 of 2024 contended that even if the allegations are accepted, they amount at most to dereliction of duty and do not constitute the offences alleged. He relied on the decision of the Co‑ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No. 200822/2022 (disposed on 09.11.2023). 4. In response, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 argued that Accused No. 2 (the purchaser) admitted in his voluntary statement that Accused No. 3 was present during the sale negotiations. Therefore, the veracity of the allegations requires investigation, and at this stage the FIR warrants no interference. He relied on Bhuvaneshwar v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P.No. 101394/2020 (disposed on 29.01.2021). 5. The arguments have been duly considered. 6. A perusal of the FIR shows that the sole allegation against Accused No. 3 is that, as Sub‑Registrar, he registered a fabricated sale deed without verifying the genuineness of the documents. 7. During the investigation, Accused No. 2 allegedly stated that Accused No. 3 was present in the hotel where negotiations occurred. Apart from this confession by a co‑accused, there is no direct or indirect material to show that Accused No. 3 conspired in impersonating the complainant or forging his signature. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 3781 of 2024 8. In Crl.P.No. 101394/2020, this Court observed that the due‑diligence requirements in Rules 71 and 74 of the Registration Act serve the public interest; a public servant who knowingly bypasses them may be guilty of dereliction of duty. The present allegation is that the petitioner colluded with others in performing his official duties. 9. Admittedly, a photocopy of Accused No. 1’s Aadhaar card bearing the complainant’s name—was produced with the sale deed, giving no cause for suspicion as to its authenticity. 10. The Co‑ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No. 200822/2022 held that, when documents meeting statutory requirements are presented, the Sub‑Registrar has no discretion to verify title or genuineness; he must register them. 11. Here, even if the allegation against Accused No. 3 is accepted, it amounts merely to dereliction of duty, not to the commission of any forgery or cheating offence. Continuing the investigation would thus be an abuse of process. Moreover, the co‑accused’s confession is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and no corroborative material implicates the petitioner in fabricating the deed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13016 CRL.P No. 3781 of 2024 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned FIR in Crime 71/2024, registered by the Nelamangala Town Police Station, on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, insofar as it relates to petitioner herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10