Shri Kumar S/O Yashwant Dhamannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2825 CRL.P No. 100128 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100128 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI. KUMAR S/O. YASHWANT DHAMANNAVAR AGE. 56 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, CHIKKODI, R/O. CHIKKODI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. GANAPATI M.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, CHIKKODI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD-583011.

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:19 +0530

¶12

SHRI. SHIVALING S/O. BHIMAPPA ARABHANVI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/O. HALATTI, CHIKKODI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. AND QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.241/2023 OF CHIKKODI PS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, CHIKKODI FOR AN OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 R/W 149 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2825 CRL.P No. 100128 of 2024

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner (accused No.6), who is facing investigation for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419, and 420 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has approached this Court seeking relief.

¶21

The prosecution alleges that accused Nos.1 to 4, in furtherance of a conspiracy, fraudulently created three sale deeds dated 19.08.2023 and got them registered in their favor by impersonating respondent No.2 through unknown persons. The specific allegation against the petitioner (accused No.6) is that, in his capacity as Sub-Registrar, he registered the said sale deeds despite having knowledge that they were executed fraudulently.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 – State.

¶23

A Division Bench of this Court, in W.P. No.18939/2009 (D.D. 18.03.2016) [S. Srinivasa Rao v. Sub-Registrar] reported in ILR 1990 Kar 3740, and in another case, Smt. Sulochanamma v. H. Nanjundaswamy & Others, reported in 2001(1) KLJ 215, has held that:

¶24

When documents are presented before the Sub-Registrar while fulfilling the statutory requirements, the Sub-Registrar has no discretion to refuse registration.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2825 CRL.P No. 100128 of 2024

¶27

The Sub-Registrar has no authority to verify the veracity of the title or the genuineness of the documents when presented before him.

¶28

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Crl.P. No.200822/2022 (D.D. 09.11.2023), while referring to the aforementioned decisions, has reiterated that:

¶29

As per Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules and Section 58(2) of the Registration Act, it is the mandatory duty of the Sub-Registrar to register a document if the parties duly present it before him.

¶30

In such circumstances, the Sub-Registrar cannot be prosecuted solely on the ground that he registered the documents, unless there is substantive evidence to establish that he acted in collusion with other accused persons in fabricating the registered documents.

¶31

In the present case, the petitioner (accused No.6) registered the sale deeds in the lawful exercise of his powers under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules and Section 58(2) of the Registration Act. The Sub-Registrar is not obligated to verify all supporting documents or the identity of the executor beyond what is legally mandated. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal investigation against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2825 CRL.P No. 100128 of 2024

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The petition is allowed.

¶36

ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.241/2023 of Chikkodi PS, pending on the file of the Court of the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Chikkodi, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.6 is hereby quashed.

¶37

iii) The Investigating officer is directed to proceed an investigation against other accused in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this petition, and the observation made, if any, is only for the purpose of this petition.

¶38

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶39

BKM Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Shri Kumar S/O Yashwant Dhamannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kumar S/O Yashwant Dhamannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kumar S/O Vithalgouda Goudar Vs State of Karnataka

Krishna v. Gudisagar Vs State of Karnataka

Anil Kumar Gudisagar Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Balaji Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sabakka Vs Smt Sumitra W/O Siddaram Karidakannavar

Bharat S/O Basavaraj Bommai Vs the State of Karnataka