Madras High Court
K.Vijayakumar vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 12 April, 2012
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.04.2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.21740 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 K.Vijayakumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 004. 2.The Sub Registrar, O/o.The Sub Registar, Pammal. 3.P.Ravi. .. Respondents Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to initiate enquiry against the 2nd respondent in connection with the complaint No.53398/R3/2010 dated 05.10.2010 on the file of the first respondent and make necessary indication or endorsement in Book IV in which document No.1001/IV/2009 registered as the impugned Power of Attorney Deed dated 31.10.2009 in Doc.No.1001/IV/2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein as nonest and invalid document and issue encumbrance certificate with such endorsement to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham For Respondents : Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan, AGP (R1 & R2) No appearance for Respondent 3 O R D E R
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to initiate enquiry against the 2nd respondent in connection with the complaint No.53398/R3/2010 dated 05.10.2010, and to make necessary indication or endorsement in Book IV in which document No.1001/IV/2009 registered as the impugned Power of Attorney Deed dated 31.10.2009 in Doc.No.1001/IV/2009 under challenge were registered by the 2nd respondent.
2.The petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 12.64 cents comprising in S.No.163/2, Old S.No.163/1, New S.Nos.163/1A and 163/1B at Gerugambakkam Village. That after the purchase of the property vide Sale Deed dated 05.12.2003, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property adjoining land of the petitioner, there are number of Companies.
3.In the first week of March 2010, when the petitioner visited the site, one employee of the neighbouring Company approached the petitioner and asked whether he was the agent of the owner of the said land as he wanted to know the sale price of the land. The petitioner told him that he had no intention of selling the land. The petitioner was informed by the said employee that one person was visiting the site by proclaiming that the site was for sale. The petitioner applied for encumbrance certificate. On receipt of encumbrance certificate, it was revealed that a registered Power of Attorney dated 31.10.2009, was shown to have been registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pammal.
4.The Power of Attorney was executed by the accused by impersonating as petitioner as Vijaya Kumar and appointing the 3rd respondent, P.Ravi, as the Power of Attorney of the petitioner, with the power to sell.
5.The submission of the petitioner is that he is not the author of the Power of Attorney. The signatures of the petitioner on the Power of Attorney and photo were also forged.
6.This was done by offenders to grab the property of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent, in whose favour the Power of Attorney was executed, was an employee of the petitioner.
7.The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, in the course of his employment had came to know about the signature of the petitioner, and forged the signature and committed the crime of forgery in registering the Power of Attorney.
8.The petitioner immediately lodged a complaint with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Egmore as also with the Sub Inspector of Police, Vadapalani Police Station. On the complaint of the petitioner, on 24.09.2010, First Information Report was registered as Crime No.482 of 2010.
9.The case of the petitioner is that as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent also filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner, in which he was granted Anticipatory Bail. The petitioner also lodged additional complaint against the 3rd respondent, for having threatened to kill the petitioner and family members.
10.It is the submission of the petitioner, that immediately on coming to know of the Power of Attorney, the petitioner filed a complaint with 1st respondent for initiating proceedings against the respondents 2 and 3. But no action has been taken by the 1st respondent till date. This inaction is in spite of the fact that the petitioner filed representation, asking the respondent to take action against the guilty.
11.Under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, discretion is given to the Registering Officer to launch a prosecution for any offence under this Act. The section provides that in case, any offence under the Act comes to the knowledge of the authorities, the prosecution can be commenced with the permission of the Inspector General, the Registrar or the Sub Registrar, in whose jurisdiction the offence is committed.
12.The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the 1st respondent has failed to perform his statutory duty in not initiating the prosecution against respondents 2 and 3, in spite of specific complaint by the petitioner, alleging impersonation by the 3rd respondent, in registering the document, in connivance with the 2nd respondent.
13.In view of the admitted case of the petitioner herein above, I find that this writ petition is misconceived. It is not in dispute that for the same allegation criminal proceeding has been initiated. It is not open to the respondents to initiate parallel prosecution for an offence committed under the Act, as it would be hit by the principle of double jeopardy, as a person cannot be tried for the same offence twice nor parallel proceedings are permissible in law.
14.The case would have been different in case no criminal case was registered on the same set of allegations.
15.The prosecution, if initiated by the 1st respondent, will be hit by the principle of double jeopardy. No direction can be issued to the 1st respondent to initiate prosecution against the 2nd respondent as it is not permissible under Section 83 of the Act. No merit. Dismissed.
16.No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
va To
1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 004.
2.The Sub Registrar, O/o.The Sub Registar, Pammal