The Bombay High Court has held that prior permission under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 is not mandatory for initiating proceedings under the Act. The Court observed that it is open to a private individual to file a complaint, as the language of Section 83 is permissive and not mandatory.

Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale was hearing an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR registered for an offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act, to which Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC were subsequently added. The FIR was registered on the complaint of the Sub-Registrar, pursuant to a complaint lodged by the President of Anupama Co-operative Housing Society. The FIR was registered based on the allegations that the Power of Attorney used in the registration of a land was not registered, and neither was it stated whether the person who gave the Power of Attorney was dead or alive.

The Applicant contended that no case is made out against the Applicant under section 82 of the Registration Act as the allegations do not make out the ingredients as required under section 82 of the Registration Act. It was further argued that the permission as required under section 83 of the Registration Act had not been taken.

The Court noted that Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act provide that in case an offence is committed under the Registration Act and if it comes to the knowledge of the registering officer in his official capacity, the prosecution can be initiated. Thus, the Court held that the language used is permissive, not mandatory.

Referring to Dharmadeo Rai v. Ramnagina Rai, the Court observed:

“… the language of section 83 is permissive and not mandatory. The word “may” has been used in the said section with the aforesaid intention and objective. In that view of the matter, I find that the prior permission as contended as required under section 83 of the Registration Act is not mandatory. It is also open for a private individual to file a complaint.”

The Court observed that the Power of Attorney dated September 23, 1980 has been misused long after the death of Balram Jaisinghani and that, when the Sale-deeds and the Power of Attorney were read together, the Power of Attorney appeared to have been used in respect of land bearing different survey numbers from those referred to in the Power of Attorney.

The Court held that a prima facie case under Section 82 of the Registration Act and Section 420 and other sections of the IPC was made out and that a prima facie case of forgery was also made out.

Regarding the petitioner's argument that a notice ought to have been issued prior to the registration of FIR, the Court observed that such a notice is neither contemplated under the Act nor necessary. It held that a notice is required to be given is not required to be given in each and every matter under the Registration Act.

The Court also noted that the survey numbers mentioned in the Power of Attorney were allotted only in 2004, and their mention in the Power of Attorney dating back to 1980 establishes forgery. It further noted that Balram Jaisinghani had died in 1989, but the Power of Attorney from 1980 was used for executing sale deeds in 2010. Thus, the Court observed that a clear prima facie case of fraud was made out.

The Court held that a prima facie case was made out against the Applicants and that no case was made out for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The application was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Mukesh Popatlal Gada v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No. 413 of 2016]

Click Here To Read/Download Order