Court clarifies permissive nature of Section 83 of the Registration Act, allowing private complaints without prior permission.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Mukesh Popatlal Gada, seeking to quash an FIR for offences under the Registration Act and the Indian Penal Code, including forgery and fraud. Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale ruled that the provisions under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, are permissive, enabling private individuals to file complaints without mandatory prior permission from registration authorities.
The case revolves around allegations that Mukesh Popatlal Gada, along with others, misused a Power of Attorney long after the death of one of its executants, Mr. Balram Jaisinghani, to execute property transactions. The FIR was initially registered under Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, and later included charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court emphasized that the language of Section 83 of the Registration Act is permissive, not prohibitory, thus allowing private prosecutions even when an offence comes to the knowledge of a registering officer in an official capacity. This interpretation aligns with previous Supreme Court rulings and counters the argument that prior permission is mandatory for prosecution under the Act.
The judgment also addressed the misuse of a non-registered and allegedly fabricated Power of Attorney dated 1980. The Power of Attorney was used in transactions executed in 2010, despite the death of Mr. Balram Jaisinghani in 1989, raising clear suspicions of forgery and fraud. The court found that the Power of Attorney referenced plot numbers that were only officially assigned in 2004, further supporting the forgery claims.
Justice Bhonsale stated that the delay in filing the FIR does not invalidate the case, given the prima facie evidence of document misuse and forgery. The court also clarified that issuing a notice to the accused before registering an FIR is neither contemplated by the Act nor necessary.
The dismissal of the application under Section 482 of the CrPC underscores the court's stance against quashing criminal proceedings when a prima facie case is established, regardless of procedural delays.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to enabling legal recourse for individuals affected by fraudulent transactions and underscores the non-mandatory nature of seeking prior permission under the Registration Act, empowering citizens to initiate legal proceedings in cases of document fraud.
Bottom Line :
Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act are permissive and not mandatory, allowing private individuals to file complaints even without prior permission.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 82, 83 of the Registration Act, 1908; Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Mukesh Popatlal Gada v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2963324
