ORDER :

1. The petitioner, who is the 3rd accused in Crime No. 29 of 2019, for offence under Sections 423, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 82(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, on the file of the 1st respondent Police, has filed the above Quash Petition.

2. The gist of the case is that the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint on 12.11.2019 stating that his grandfather Natesan had five children viz. Thailammai, Kanniyappan (father of the 2nd respondent), Loganathan/A1, Periyanayagi and Anjalai. The said Natesan along with siblings owned land in Thondamanatham Village, Cuddalore District. Some properties were purchased by Natesan. The said Natesan died intestate in 1992 and his wife Sivabagyam died in the year 2002 leaving behind Kanniyappan (father of the 2nd respondent) and Loganathan/A1 (Two Males) and Thailammai, Periyanayagi and Anjalai (Three Females) as legal heirs. The properties were inherited and the same were enjoyed by them jointly in joint patta. A1/Loganathan settled in Coimbatore for the past 40 years and he is nothing to do with the property of Natesan.

3. A1/Loganathan in connivance with A2/Village Administrative Officer, Thondamanatham and A3/the petitioner, Sub Registrar, Kullanchavadi had prepared forged legal heir certificate of Natesan, suppressing the other legal heirs. A2/Village Administrative Officer without conducting any proper enquiry issued legal heir certificate to A1 which he is not empowered. The Village Administrative Officer is to conduct an enquiry, forward his report to the Revenue Inspector, who in turn to Tahsildar and the Tahsildar is the competent authority to issue the legal heir certificate. Contrary to the same, in this case, the petitioner, who is the Sub Registrar, Kullanchavadi relying on the legal heir certificate issued by A2/VAO, admitted the settlement deed vide document No. 1436 of 2019 in favour of L. Mahadevi, wife of A1 and a sale deed vide document No. 1435 of 2019 in favour of one A. Jayanthi on 29.07.2019 based on the forged legal heir certificate. The petitioner knowing well the genuineness of the document issued by A2/VAO who is not a competent person to issue such document, had accepted the same and registered the above documents. Hence, the 2nd respondent, who is the son of Kanniyappan (legal heir of Natesan), lodged a complaint to the 1st respondent Police. On the complaint, a case in Crime No. 29 of 2019, for offence under Sections 423, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 82(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, was registered.

4. The 1st respondent Police took up the investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses and collected documents and the investigation is at the penultimate stage. The above Quash Petition is filed by the petitioner/A3 to quash the FIR in Crime No. 29 of 2019.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent is none other than the brother's son of A1 and there seems to be some family dispute among themselves, for which the petitioner/A3 has been falsely implicated in this case. Admittedly, the petitioner was only a Sub Registrar, Kullanchavadi at the relevant point of time. As Sub Registrar, the petitioner's duty is to verify the identity of the parties; joint patta in the name of Natesan; legal heir certificate of the Village Administrative Officer confirming that the executant/A1 is the sole legal heir of Natesan. After verifying the same, the petitioner admitted the documents. Further, as per Section 86 of the Registration Act, 1908, no Registration Officer shall be liable to any suit, claim or demand by reason of anything done in good faith or refused in his official capacity. Therefore, the petitioner/A2 cannot be prosecuted. The petitioner acted only in his official capacity.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner is bald in nature and there is no specific overtact against him to attract the offences. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance