- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:715 CRL.P No. 102474 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102474 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. K.SOUMYA LATHA W/O. SRI. DEENA R. AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: SUB-REGISTRAR, DHARWAD, R/O: DHARWAD-580001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RESHMA MADIWALAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KHANAPUR POLICE STATION, KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD. 2. SHRI. MARUTHI S/O. GOVIND KINAYEKAR AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: H/NO.125, KARLE VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.264/2016 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 120-B, 166, 406, 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 & 109 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI AND QUASH THE ORDER OF LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING THE PROCESS BY ORDER DATED 19.09.2019 IN SO FAR PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.11). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.22 15:00:45 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:715 CRL.P No. 102474 of 2019 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, accused No.11, who is sought to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), has approached this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2, through impersonation, executed a sale deed in favor of accused Nos.4 and 5. Accused No.10 allegedly drafted the sale deed on the instructions of accused Nos.1 to 5. The specific allegation against the petitioner (accused No.11) is that, as the Sub-Registrar, he knowingly registered the fraudulent sale deed despite being aware that it was fabricated. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State. 4. The primary allegations of impersonation and fabrication of the sale deed are directed against accused Nos.1 to 5. The only allegation against accused No.11 is that, as the Sub- Registrar, he registered the sale deed, allegedly knowing that it was fraudulent. 5. In identical circumstances, a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.55725/2016 at paragraph Nos.5 and 6 has held as follows: "5. A reading of the complaint indicates that a sale deed relating to the immovable property belonging to the complainant was presented for registration before the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:715 CRL.P No. 102474 of 2019 petitioner on 13.10.2015. I have perused the copy of the said sale deed at Annexure-C. Except registering the said document, there is nothing in the said document to show that the petitioner herein has identified either the executant or the purchaser of the property. On the other hand, the endorsement made in the document clearly discloses that the executant was identified by the witnesses by name Alakh Narayana Singh and Lawrence D’Cruz. The petitioner has not taken up the responsibility of identifying any one of the executant or the purchaser of the property. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that the identity of the parties was known to the petitioner, no knowledge of alleged forgery or impersonation can be imputed to the petitioner. Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 casts a duty on the Registering Officer to register the documents presented before him, unless the registration thereof is objected by any person on the grounds specified therein. It reads as under: “73. Duties of the Registering Officer:- (i) It shall form no part of the Registering Officer’s duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document, provided execution is duty admitted; but in case of executants who are unable to read, the document shall be read out and if necessary explained to them. If the document is in a language which they do not understand it must be interpreted to them. (ii) If registration is objected to by any person on any of the following grounds, viz., (a) that a person appearing or about to appear before the Registering Officer as an executant or claimant the person he Professes to be, or that he is a minor, an idiot, or lunatic; (b) that the instrument is forged; - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:715 CRL.P No. 102474 of 2019 (c)that the person appearing as a representative, assignee or agent has no right to appear in that capacity; (d) that the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by the party applying for registration; Such objections shall be duly weighed by the Registering Officer and if they are substantiated, registration shall be refused but under sub- section (2) of Section 58, if execution be admitted, registration should take place even if the executant refuses to sign the Registering Officer's endorsement of admission.” 6. It is not the case of the complainant that registration of the alleged document was objected to either by the complainant or any other person on the ground of impersonation or fraud. In this context, it may be useful to refer to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of S.Sreenivasa Rao V/s Sub Registrar reported in ILR 1990 KAR 3740. Considering the similar issue raised before this Court as to the duties of the Sub Registrar, the Division Bench of this Court at para 6 of the said order has observed as under: “6. Coming to the next question as to whether the Registrar of Societies could have issued a direction to the Sub-Registrar not to register a particular document, learned Counsel for the respondents - 3 to 5, 7 and 10, could not point out any provision either in the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 or the Rules framed thereunder or in the Registration Act, 1908, which authorised the Registrar of Societies to make such a direction. We also find no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 which obliges the Sub- Registrar to act upon any such direction and/or to investigate at the stage of registration of a document itself, the title of the party executing the document. We are, therefore of the view that if a document is presented for registration by the executant, and in doing so, the executant complies with all the provisions of Registration - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:715 CRL.P No. 102474 of 2019 Act, 1908, it is not open to the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of the document unless he exercises that discretion pursuant to any provision in the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law or Rule having the force of law. The mere registration of a document is by itself not a proof of its validity, neither does it follow that the executant had title to the property, he seeks to dispose of under the document. Matters such as relating to title have to be decided before the appropriate forum. If any person is interested in contending that any particular document executed and registered under the Registration Act, 1908 is invalid or illegal for any reason whatsoever, he is certainly at liberty to question the validity of the document, the title of the executant, and such other questions before the proper forum in an appropriate proceeding. Similarly, if it is sought to be contended in the instant case that the Trust Deed has been executed in contravention of the provision of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 any person aggrieved may challenge the validity of the Trust Deed in a duly constituted proceeding. There is, however, no warrant for the proposition that the registration of the document itself can be prevented by directing the Sub-Registrar not to register the document. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the direction issued by the Registrar of Societies to the Sub-Registrar was competent and consequently Annexure-D was also valid.” 6. From the above proposition, it follows that when the document is presented for registration, the Sub Registrar is not required to investigate into the title of the parties executing the document nor it is open to Sub Registrar to refuse registration of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:715 CRL.P No. 102474 of 2019 the document, unless the presentation thereof is objected to on the ground mentioned therein. 7. In the present case, there is no allegation that the accused, in connivance with others, created or forged the document, or that the accused registered the document through impersonation. Therefore, the petitioner, being the Sub-Registrar, cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences in the absence of essential elements constituting the commission of such offences. 8. Even if the allegations are accepted at face value, at most, they would amount to dereliction of duty and not the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. 9. Consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. Therefore, in the absence of specific and credible allegations against the petitioner showing that he acted in collusion with the other accused in creating or executing the fabricated sale deed through impersonation, the continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No.11, solely on the ground that he - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:715 CRL.P No. 102474 of 2019 registered the sale deed as a Sub-Registrar, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.264/2016 on the file of learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur, are hereby quashed. JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52 Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE