Karnataka High Court
Shivananjappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27330
CRL.P No. 3551 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3551 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SHIVANANJAPPA
ADDTIONAL DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
BDA COMPLEX, BENGALURU 01
AS PER AADHAR CARD,
SHIVANANJAIAH S/O THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NO 174, 7TH CROSS, SARASWATHI NAGAR,
VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE 01.
Digitally signed 2. POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
by CHANDANA STF AND VIGILANCE BDA,
BM BENGALURU DISTRICT - 01.
Location: High ...RESPONDENTS
Court of (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1
Karnataka SRI. MURUGESH.V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.22732/2022 (IN CR.NO.7/2021) BY
SHESHADRIPURAM P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE III
ACMM AT BENGLAURU IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/US/ 409, 465, 468, 471, 420, 417, 424, 120-B R/W SEC.34
OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27330
CRL.P No. 3551 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"WHEREFORE the petitioner in the above petition most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash entire proceedings in C.C.No.22732/2022 (In Crl.Mis.No.7/2021) by Sheshadripuram Police Station, pending on the file of Hon'ble III ACMM at Bengaluru in so far as petitioner is concerned for the offence punishable U/S 409, 465, 468, 471, 420, 417, 424, 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 - Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) filed the instant complaint dated 26.02.2014 registered as FIR in Crime No.7/2021 against the petitioner - accused No.71 and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
4. Respondent - Police having conducted investigation have filed charge sheet pending consideration in -3- NC: 2025:KHC:27330 CRL.P No. 3551 of 2024 HC-KAR C.C.No.22732/2022 In this context it is relevant to state here that a perusal of the FIR, complaint and charge sheet material, documents etc., will indicate that the allegations leveled against the petitioner is that he registered certain sale deeds executed by the BDA Officials on investigation of beneficiaries/allottees in relation to the various sites which are the subject matter of the impugned proceedings. It is also relevant to state that Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 (for short "the said Rules of 1965") 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 road 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:27330 CRL.P No. 3551 of 2024 HC-KAR
(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 subsection (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."
5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner has registered the subject documents in accordance with Rule 73 of the said Rules of 1965, which contemplates the duties of the petitioner/Registering Officer and he cannot refuse registration of documents except in the circumstances appearing in Rule 73 of the said Rules 1965, especially when he is said to have not followed any rules under the said Rules 1965. Under identical circumstances, in relation to similar offences alleged against one more Sub-Registrar, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vijayamahantesh Vs. The State of Karnataka and another - W.P.No.202875/2022 dated 06.07.2025, held as under:
"The registration of FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 419, 464, 468, 420 of IPC is impugned in this petition by the accused No.7.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:27330 CRL.P No. 3551 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. The summary of the charge sheet is that, the subject land belongs to the 2nd respondent, and the accused No.2, by impersonating the complainant, agreed to convey the subject land in favour of the accused No.1 by receiving an advance sale consideration of Rs.19,100/- and the same was registered in the office of which the accused is the Sub- Registrar.
3. Though the respondent No.2 has been served with notice, he has not chosen to appear in person or through his counsel.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No.7 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State.
5. Perusal of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 indicates that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has registered the sale deed by colluding with the other accused. The petitioner while discharging his duty as Senior sub-Registrar is required to look only into as to whether the documents produced are in order, and he is not under an obligation to verify the genuineness of the documents produced for registration. Rule 73 of The Karnataka Registration Rules 1965 specifies that, the duty of registering officer if not 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. The co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Sulochanamma 4 vs. H. Nanjundaswajy and others reported in 2001(1) KLJ 215 has held the Sub-Registrar is entrusted with the duty of -6- NC: 2025:KHC:27330 CRL.P No. 3551 of 2024 HC-KAR registering the documents in accordance with the provisions of the Act and he is not authorized to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the document. Even otherwise, at the utmost, it may amount to dereliction of duty, and does not constitute an offence punishable as alleged against the petitioner. Hence, the impugned FIR is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned FIR dated 17.10.2022 in Crime No.224/2022 registered by the respondent No.1 -
Lingasugur Police Station, Raichur, insofar as it relates to petitioner- accused No.7 is hereby quashed.
iii) The Investigating Officer shall proceed against the other accused in accordance with law only for the purpose of deciding the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order."
6. As held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, mere negligence on the part of the petitioner in exercising due diligence in registering the subject documents would at the most amount to dereliction of duty and hence, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the alleged offences only insofar as accused No.71 is concerned, which deserves to be quashed.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:27330 CRL.P No. 3551 of 2024 HC-KAR ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.22732/2022 (arising out of Crime No.7/2021 registered by respondent No.1-Police), pending on the file of the III ACMM, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioner - accused No.71 is concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0