Judgment : 1. The petition is filed seeking to call for the records in Cr. No. 6 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District and quash the same. 2. A complaint was given by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 471 IPC, which has been registered in Cr. No. 6 of 2010. The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows. 3. One Raju Reddiar died leaving behind four daughters viz., Kanagam, Selvi, Meena and Chandrakala, the defacto-complainant and two so/is Anbukarasan and Srinivasa. He died on 28.3.2004 after a prolonged illness. After the demise of Raju Reddiar, there was a meeting among the sons and daughters on 23.6.2004 for the purpose of partitioning the property left by their father. 4. Some settlement was arrived at according to which the daughters were to be paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- out of which initially they are to be paid a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/. However the brothers did not pay the amount. Therefore, the defacto-complainant and two other daughters jointly filed O.S. No. 175 of 2007 before the District Court, Srivilliputhur for partition. In the suit the sons produced a Will dated 19.3.2004 which was registered on 21.4.2004. Since Raju Reddiar died as early as 28.3.2004, the defacto-complainant suspected the genuineness of the Will and found that a fabricated and fraudulent document has been created in order to cheat the daughters. 5. The defacto-complainant had alleged that the said Anbukarasan and Srinivasan with the assistance of the petitioners who are the Sub Registrar of Sathur and a document writer had conspired and committed the above said offences. The 1st petitioner, being the Sub Registrar of Sathur, and the 2nd petitioner, being the Document writer have approached this Court to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in Cr. No. 6 of 2010 on various grounds. 6. According to the 1st petitioner, in his official capacity as Sub Registrar, Sathur, he registered the Will in accordance with law on 21.3.2004 and not on 21.4.2004. No. 6 of 2010 on various grounds. 6. According to the 1st petitioner, in his official capacity as Sub Registrar, Sathur, he registered the Will in accordance with law on 21.3.2004 and not on 21.4.2004. According to the 1st petitioner, the actual registration of the Will was on 21.3.2004 prior to the death of Raju Reddiar, but unfortunately, while making the entry in the copy of the Will to disclose the date of Registration, due to oversight instead of putting the registration date as 21.3.2004, it has been noted by mistake as 21.4.2004. 7. It is further submitted that after realising the mistake, it has been rectified by obtaining a specific order from District Registrar and there is no mala fide. It is further submitted that the petitioners, being the official and a document writer, cannot said to have fabricated or created fraudulent documents and they are unnecessarily being dragged into the controversy. 8. Reiterating the above contentions, Mr. D. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations on the face value itself would not attract any of the penal offences mentioned in the First Information Report against the petitioners and an official has been dragged into a family dispute and therefore, the Court has to interfere and quash the proceedings. 9. The learned counsel pointed out that a typographical error while issuing the copy of the Will was blown out of proportion and a statutory authority has been dragged into criminal proceedings. The learned counsel pointed out that there is no specific allegations in the complaint except a stray statement that the Sub Registrar and a document writer had colluded with other two accused and created a fabricated document which will not constitute a cognizable offence. 10. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 30.12.2003 in W.P. No. 32746 of 2002 and another unreported judgment dated 14.11.2007 in W.P. No. 19530 of 2007, wherein this Court has held that the Registering authority cannot refuse to register a document and he is to satisfy only the execution of the document and not the right of the parties. 11. Also relied on another unreported order passed in Crl. 11. Also relied on another unreported order passed in Crl. O.P. No. 7131 of 2010 dated 13.7.2010 where the learned single Judge has referred to Rule 55 of the Registration Rules, and has quashed the proceedings against a Sub Registrar of Mettupalayam, who was also arrayed as a party on a criminal complaint. 12. The learned counsel further relied on an unreported judgment dated 22.11.2007 in Crl. O.P. No. 774 of 2007 where this Court has again interfered in a complaint where a Sub Registrar was arrayed as an accused for registering a document and also quoted from an unreported judgment in W.P. No. 10822 of 2008 dated 22.10.2009 where this Court held that the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register a document. 13. On the contrary, Mr. C. Rakee Sridharan, learned counsel for the defacto- complainant would submit that it is a clear case of forgery and creation of fraudulent document with the help of the petitioners. The learned counsel pointed out that the alleged Will was registered by the 1st petitioner on 21.4.2004 after the death of late Raju Reddiar, but the date was altered on 28.1.2008 after a period of four years. The learned counsel pointed out that according to the petitioners the date of registration of the Will, is 21.3.2004 which actually was a Sunday. He also pointed out that on 21.3.2004 late Raju Reddiar was admitted in a private hospital at Madurai and was in an unconscious stage and kept under ventilation till his death on 28.3.2004. 14. He further submitted that a forensic report was also obtained to show that the thumb impressions are smudged and the register book of Registrar Office was also forged. 15. He also pointed out that it is a definite case of connivance of the petitioners with the main accused who have created forged, fabricated and fraudulent documents in order to cheat the defacto-complainant and other legal heirs. 16. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 17. The powers of the High Court in exercising under Section 482 is very limited. Even according to the petitioners, the case is under investigation. Though various orders produced by the petitioners would show that the Sub Registrar in his official capacity cannot refuse registration of any document and unnecessarily dragging the Sub Registrar in criminal cases has to be deprecated. 18. Even according to the petitioners, the case is under investigation. Though various orders produced by the petitioners would show that the Sub Registrar in his official capacity cannot refuse registration of any document and unnecessarily dragging the Sub Registrar in criminal cases has to be deprecated. 18. In the celebrated case of State of Haryana and Others v Bhajanlal and Others AIR 1998 SC 604: (1992) SCC (Cr) 426: LNIND 1990 SC 732. the Apex Court has clearly laid down the guidelines, where the inherent powers under Sec.482 of the Court could be exercised. “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying, the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 19. Surprisingly the petition to quash the First Information Report which is filed by the petitioners contains the entire details of the dispute between the sons and daughters. The typed set filed along with the petition would also include the copy of the Will dated 21.3.2004 and the various documents executed between the parties and also includes the copy of the plaint in O.S No. 175 of 2007 and O.S. No. 48 of 2010. The 1st petitioner who claims to be an official discharging the duty as Sub Registrar, had gone to such an extent of describing the exact dispute between the legal heirs of the Raju Reddiar and every instance which took place between them. 20. I am at a loss to understand that if it is a simple case of a registering authority registering a document, why should he know so much about the dispute and is also in possession of various documents exchanged between the parties. Though this Court is not entitled to discuss in detail the evidence and the documents produced by both the parties and conduct a roving enquiry, a prima facie case has been made out that there is something wrong with the document which has been registered by the 1st petitioner and written by the 2nd petitioner. Though this Court is not entitled to discuss in detail the evidence and the documents produced by both the parties and conduct a roving enquiry, a prima facie case has been made out that there is something wrong with the document which has been registered by the 1st petitioner and written by the 2nd petitioner. When the hospital records show that the executant was admitted in the hospital on 21.3.2004 and died on 28.3.2004, the attempt to explain that the Will has been registered only on 21.3.2004 but mistakenly the date has been entered as 21.4.2004, creates a doubt even for a common sense approach. 21. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant that 21.3.2004 happened to be Sunday. 22. It is not an ordinary case where a vague allegation has been made against a Sub Registrar, who registered a document in course of his discharging duty. There are enough materials to show that the matter has to be investigated and cannot be interfered at this stage. 23. The petitioners will also have equal opportunity to substantiate their claims before the investigating officer and it is the duty of the investigating officer to conduct a fair and proper investigation and file a final report based on the legal and acceptable evidence. Even though it is true that simply because the 1st petitioner happens to be the Sub Registrar who registered a document in his official capacity, a criminal case cannot be proceeded against him, the gravity of the allegations reveal that it requires a detailed investigation and I am of the considered view that this Court cannot interfere at the threshold. 24. In the result, the criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected MP is closed. G.M. AKBAR ALI, J. At the time of pronouncement of the order, Mr. Perumal, the learned counsel, who represented the first respondent‘s counsel, submitted that in the present case charge sheet has already been filed on 2.8.2011 and produced copy of the charge sheet also. Since the criminal original petition itself is dismissed, the above information is recorded.