ORDER : Accused No.6, a Sub-Registrar working in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jamakhandi, has approached this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC. seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No. 24/2020 at Jamakhandi Town Police Station, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC. 2. A case was registered based on the complaint of one Chidanand Ajjappa Mali, a resident of Jamakhandi dated 25.02.2020 wherein it is alleged that in a compromise decree passed by this Court, in property bearing Survey No.33/3 land measuring 10 guntas and in Sy.No.33/12 land measuring 10 guntas, in all measuring 20 guntas of Hunnur village was allotted to him and one Vijayalakshmi Mendigeri (accused No.1) who is his cousin also got her share separately under the said decree. He has further stated in the complaint that the entire property including the share allotted to him under the compromise decree was still standing in the Revenue records in the name of accused No.1 stated earlier. On 10.01.2020 when he went to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jamakhandi, he came to know that both the items of land allotted to him under the compromise decree before this Court were sold by accused No.1 by sale deeds registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jamakhandi. On inspection of the documents in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jamakhandi, he came to know that a stamp paper of the value of Rs.200/-was obtained on 27.12.2019 from a Society in Jamakhandi and a document was prepared to the effect that complainant had given consent for the sale of the property allotted to his share in the compromise decree in favour of Toufik Moulasab who is accused No.2 in the case. He further came to know that there was recital in the said consent letter that since it was going to take considerable time to get the property mutated in the name of the complainant, the said consent letter was given in favour of Smt. Vijayalakshmi Mendigeri (accused No.1) to execute the sale deed in favour of accused No.2. it is further stated in the complaint that the signature on the said alleged consent letter was a forged one and complainant had not signed the same. it is further stated in the complaint that the signature on the said alleged consent letter was a forged one and complainant had not signed the same. He has also alleged in the complaint that false recitals were made in the documents about huge amounts of money having been given to the complainant for giving the said consent letter. The further allegation is that two sale deeds dated 31.12.2019 were presented before the present petitioner who is the Sub-Registrar of Jamakhandi, for registration purporting to be sale deeds in respect of the property allotted to the share of the complainant in favour of accused No.2 and it contained forged signatures of the complainant. The details of the names of the persons who had signed as witnesses to the consent letter as well as to the sale deed have been given in the complaint. There is clear allegation against petitioner that he had colluded with the rest of the accused in committing the offences. 3. Learned counsel Sri. Gundawade appearing for the petitioner herein submits that petitioner is an official working in the capacity of Sub-Registrar, Jamakhandi and under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, (the ‘Rules’ for short) it was no part of his duty to enquire into the validity of the document and since it was presented before him, in performance of his duties, he had only registered the document and therefore, he has not committed any offence, much less, offence alleged in the FIR under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and therefore, if on such a complaint the petitioner is made to face investigation, it will be abuse of process of law and accordingly, it is a fit case for quashing of the FIR. He further contended vehemently and in great elaboration that in the sale deeds there is a clear recital that the complainant had given consent to accused No.1 for executing the sale deed in favour of accused No.2. 4. He further contended vehemently and in great elaboration that in the sale deeds there is a clear recital that the complainant had given consent to accused No.1 for executing the sale deed in favour of accused No.2. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader, per contra, submits that this is an unusual case where the present petitioner who is a Sub-Registrar, inspite of clear recitals in the documents themselves, and being fully aware of the fact that executant of the documents, namely accused No.1 was not having any General Power of Attorney from the real owner, namely the complainant, has allowed her to present the documents of sale in his office and registered the documents and therefore it is very clear that he is complicit in the commission of the offences. He therefore submits that it is a fit case where the investigation should be allowed to be proceeded with and the petition should be dismissed. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and I have perused the complaint, the two sale deeds dated 31.12.2019 (documents No.8434 and 8435) registered by the present petitioner in his office on 08.01.2020. 6. Recitals in page 3 of the two sale deeds are identically worded and they make it very clear that the present petitioner could not have been unaware from the contents of the documents registered by him that the subject property under the sale deeds was exclusively allotted to the share of the complainant in the compromise decree passed by this Court and the share allotted under the same decree to accused No.1 was already sold by her. The sale deeds further show that petitioner was aware that the executant of the sale deed, namely accused No.1 – Vijayalakshmi Mendigeri was neither the owner of the property nor was she having a General Power of Attorney or special Power of Attorney to execute the sale deed on behalf of the real owner, the complainant or present the said documents for registration. The recital in the sale deed is to the effect that she was having a consent letter from the complainant for executing the sale deed. The relevant portion of sale deeds at page 3 (in both document No.8434 and 8435) reads as follows : OTHER LANGUAGE 7. The recital in the sale deed is to the effect that she was having a consent letter from the complainant for executing the sale deed. The relevant portion of sale deeds at page 3 (in both document No.8434 and 8435) reads as follows : OTHER LANGUAGE 7. The precise allegation in the complaint is that the sale deeds were manipulated one and signatures on the consent letter as well as on the sale deeds (wherein complainant is shown as a witness) are all forged signatures. It is relevant to notice that if really the complainant was present at the time of the registration of documents and had signed the sale deeds as a witness before him in his office (as per the endorsement made by the petitioner on the sale deeds), petitioner who is accused No.6 and a responsible Sub-Registrar, knowing fully well that complainant is the owner of the property as per the recitals in the sale deeds should have been the executant of the same, he should have asked him to execute the sale deeds or at least present the documents for registration himself. A Sub-Registrar who is supposed to know the elementary legal position and knowing fully well that accused No.1 is neither the owner nor the Power of Attorney Holder of the owner and also being aware that someone who is the real owner had signed the documents in the position of a witness, could not have permitted her to present the sale deeds in question for registration on the strength of a mere consent letter. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, also does not avail him because the recital in the sale deeds which he had registered themselves makes it clear that accused No.1 had no power or authority to execute the said sale deeds or present them for registration as already explained herein above. The facts borne out on the face of the sale deeds themselves should alert a Sub-Registrar, without any enquiry, regarding the fraudulent nature of the documents sought to be registered before him and it is naïve to contend that petitioner could not have known it and he was not, under the terms of Rule 73, required to hold any enquiry regarding the validity of the documents and therefore complaint against him is sheer abuse of process of law. 8. 8. Rule 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 reads as follows : “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; (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.” 9. A plain reading of the above shows that a Sub-Registrar cannot be fastened with the duty to hold an elaborate enquiry into the validity of a document brought to him for registration, understandably, because in the very nature of things, during the normal course of performance of his duties, he is only expected to go through the contents of the same before registering the same and no more. But that, however, cannot be understood as saying, without of course giving leave to common sense, that a Sub-Registrar should register a document blindfolded when on the face of it, it is disclosed that executant/presenter of the document for registration is neither the owner nor the power of attorney holder of the owner and the one shown as the owner is a mere witness. If the complainant had signed it as a consenting witness as it was sought to be contended before me, for one thing; documents do not bear such a recital, for another; if such was the purport, in terms of Rule 71(i)(d), (iii) and (iv) of the Rules, the Sub-Registrar (petitioner herein) was required to obtain and affix the photographs of such assenting person to the documents and also to the thumb impression register. The same applies if someone had impersonated the complainant and petitioner ought to have affixed his photograph to the documents and the thumb impression register. Petitioner has done neither; at least it was not claimed before me that he has done so. 10. Rule 71(i)(d), (iii) and (iv) in so far as same is relevant for the present purposes reads as follows : “71. Persons executing documents.-(i) The expression “A person executing a document” shall be held to include. – (a) xxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxx (d) any person who signs a document as an executant in token of his assent to the transaction and not merely as a witness even though he may not be described as an executant in the body of the document. (ii) xxxxx (iii) Every person executing a document as referred to in sub-rules (i) and (ii) of this rule, shall produce to the registering officer, two recent passport size photographs at the time of recording of admission of execution. One photograph shall be affixed to the document at the appropriate place in the admission of execution endorsement made as per Rule 94, and the other to the thumb impression register where thumb impression and signature, if any, of the executant is obtained. (iv) Without prejudice to sub-rule (iii) of this rule registering officer may obtain digital photographs of the executants and cause it to be printed at appropriate place in admission of execution, endorsement and thumb impression register, if he is equipped with a suitable device for the said purpose.” 11. Further, Rule 74 reads as follows : “74. (iv) Without prejudice to sub-rule (iii) of this rule registering officer may obtain digital photographs of the executants and cause it to be printed at appropriate place in admission of execution, endorsement and thumb impression register, if he is equipped with a suitable device for the said purpose.” 11. Further, Rule 74 reads as follows : “74. Proof to be adduced by a representative.-Satisfactory proof of the right of a person to appear in any of these capacities shall be adduced before he is permitted to present a document or to admit or deny its execution.” Purport of the above rule also makes it clear that a Sub-Registrar cannot act mechanically and like a classical ‘postman’ in registering the documents and on the other hand, he should exercise all ‘due diligence’ in terms of the above Rules to satisfy himself about ‘the right of a person to appear in any of these capacities’, namely, as executant, and also as a person appearing ‘in token of his assent to the transaction’ before him. 12. Petitioner is a public servant. That public servants as holders of public power are in the nature of “trustees” of such power is an overworked phrase, nay, almost a cliché. The precautionary principles engrafted in Rules 71 and 74 are measures of “due diligence” for the benefit of public. A public servant who is repository of such power bypassing or turning a Nelson’s eye to the same – and allegation against the petitioner in this case is he has colluded with the rest of the accused -in the performance of his duties and as a consequence fraud and public mischief ensues, could be committing an ‘illegal omission’ and could be an abettor to the commission of the offences and what is worse, could be an active collaborator in the commission of the offences alleged, both of which can make him a ‘particeps criminis’. Truth-like fraud – has to be unravelled in a properly held investigation. 13. All these aspects can be gone into only in an investigation held by the Police on the complaint which is already registered. 14. Under such circumstances, as alleged in the complaint, there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused – petitioner is also involved in the commission of the offence and therefore investigation should be allowed to be proceeded with. 14. Under such circumstances, as alleged in the complaint, there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused – petitioner is also involved in the commission of the offence and therefore investigation should be allowed to be proceeded with. Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be used sparingly and with circumspection. Keeping in view the restricted scope of application of provision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as explained in para 121 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and others reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1 , this is not a fit case where such power should be exercised for quashing the FIR. 15. Hence, the following : The above petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the above petition, I.A.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and hence, it is also dismissed.