ORDER : T. RAJANI, J. 1. This petition is filed seeking for quash of the proceedings against the petitioner, who is A10 before the Court below, in CC No. 3905 of 2018 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The offences alleged are under Sections 190, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with 120-B IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908. 2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner; the Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and the Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner, importantly, contends that sanction is required to prosecute A10, being a public servant, as Section 83 of the Registration Act mandates permission of the Inspector General, the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed, in order to prosecute A10. Section 83 of the Act can be extracted for ready reference, which reads as follows: "83. Registering Officers may commence prosecutions.--(1) A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a Registering Officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector-General, [xxx] the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed. (2) Offences punishable under this Act shall be triable by any Court or officer exercising powers not less than those of a Magistrate of the Second Class." 4. The offence under Section 82 of the Act is also alleged against the petitioner. Section 83 speaks about the prosecution of the offences under the Act. Hence, it has to be examined whether permission, as mandated under Section 83, is required in this case or not. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court reported in Ummadisetti Ratnasagar v. State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, 2016 (2) ALD (Crl.) 135 : 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 26 (AP), wherein it was held that such permission is required since taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner is violation of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is non-est in the eye of law. The allegation against the petitioner therein is that being a Sub-Registrar, he failed to properly scrutinize the stamp papers and the entries in the concerned registers to detect the ante-dated nature of the stamps. The allegation against the petitioner therein is that being a Sub-Registrar, he failed to properly scrutinize the stamp papers and the entries in the concerned registers to detect the ante-dated nature of the stamps. It cannot be disputed that scrutiny of the stamps and verification of the concerned registers form part of the official duty of the petitioner therein. 6. Per contra, the Counsel for the unofficial respondents relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in between Dharmadeo Rai v. Ramnagina Rai, Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1969, wherein it was held at Paragraph 3 as follows: "In this Court, the only point argued on behalf of the appellant was that the complaint was incompetent as it was filed by a person without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 83 of the Act and, therefore, the conviction was bad and must be set aside. Section 83 of the Act provides: "83. (1) A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a Registering Officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector-General, the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed. (2) Offences punishable under this Act shall be triable by any Court or officer - exercising powers not less than those of a Magistrate of the Second Class." On a reading of the section, it would be clear that it deals only with prosecution for an offence under the Act coming to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capacity. It, in effect, provides that where an offence comes to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capacity, a prosecution may be commenced by or with the permission of any of the officers mentioned in the section. The section can possibly have no application to cases in which offences are committed under the Act, but the offences do not come to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capacity. If the Registering Officer does not know in his official capacity that the document produced before him is a false document or that the person appearing before him is personating some other person, the section has no application. The section is not prohibitory in that it does not preclude a private person from commencing a prosecution. If the Registering Officer does not know in his official capacity that the document produced before him is a false document or that the person appearing before him is personating some other person, the section has no application. The section is not prohibitory in that it does not preclude a private person from commencing a prosecution. Even in a case where the commission of an offence comes to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capacity, the section does not prohibit a private person from commencing a prosecution as the section is clearly permissive in its language and intent. In other words, the section is an enabling one. It enables the persons mentioned therein to commence a prosecution in cases where the commission of the offence under the Act comes to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capacity. The section enables the officers named to use their official position for the purpose of prosecution without, personal risk." 7. By relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above this Court in Crl. P No. 11774 of 2010 between Shaik @ Mohammed Gousinnisa Begum @ Gousia Begum and others v. Shaik Abdul Rasheed and another, 2014 (1) ALD (Crl.) 143 (AP), also held that there is no legal impediment for a private person to launch prosecution without the permission of the registering authority. However, by considering the merits of the case, proceedings against A2 and A3 were quashed by this Court. Hence, it is clear that unless the prosecuting authority is the Registering Officer, no permission need to be taken from the Inspector-General, the Registrar or Sub-Registrar. 8. Coming to the merits of the case, the Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is only one allegation made against this petitioner that is, that A1 and A2 gave Rs. 10,000/- to A10, who is the petitioner herein, and he, in turn, obtained the signatures in connected documents and informed that the work is completed and asked them to take the documents after two days. He submits that, at best, the said allegation would attract the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but the offences under Section 420 IPC cannot be alleged against the petitioner. He submits that, at best, the said allegation would attract the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but the offences under Section 420 IPC cannot be alleged against the petitioner. But the charge-sheet shows that this petitioner asked for the original of the document, but, without the original being produced, he obtained the signatures on the connected documents which goes to show that he wanted to commit an act of cheating by manipulating the whole process, which is involved in the registration. 9. Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that all these are the aspects, which have to be considered only during the time of trial and thereby, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, at this stage, would not be safe. 10. With the above observations, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, considering the request of the petitioner's Counsel, the petitioner is given liberty to file a discharge petition before the Court below and raise all the contentions raised in this petition before the said Court and the Court below shall consider the same, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order, and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 11. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.