2. This writ application has been filed for quashing/setting aside letter no. 1319, dated 26.07.2016 issued by respondent no. 3/the District Registration Officer vide Annexure-1 whereby and whereunder the District Registration Officer has refused to initiate a criminal complaint/formal investigation and prosecution against respondent no. 4 as envisaged under Section 83 of the Indian Registration Act for the crime allegedly committed under Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 and has recorded that the petitioner is competent to pursue such complaint before the competent court.

3. The petitioner is a land owner. She had entered into a development agreement with respondent no. 4, namely, Khayati Construction Private Limited. The building was not complete. In the meantime, respondent no. 4 sold flats of the share of the petitioner to different persons through different registered sale deeds making false declaration before the Registrar that the respondent no. 4 is entitled under Section 5 of the Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006 to sell the said flat. Though the same was assigned in the share of the land owner/petitioner by the written agreement vide Annexures 4, 4/A, 5 and 6.

4. The petitioner filed applications vide Annexure-2 series, for initiation of a criminal contempt against respondent no. 4 for alleged false declaration made by him while executing different registered sale deeds in favour of different persons, just to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. The District Sub-Registrar communicated the impugned letter stating therein that after taking necessary guidelines from the department, he is of the view that the petitioner is competent to lodge a criminal complaint before a competent court.

5. Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows:—

“83. Registering officer may commence prosecutions.—(1) A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector General, [***] the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed.

(2) Offences punishable under this Act shall be triable by any Court or officer exercising powers not less than those of a Magistrate of the second class.”

6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would make it clear that with the permission of the concerned authorities criminal prosecution can be launched by the private person also. Similar question was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharmadeo Rai Vs. Ramnagina Rai reported in 1972 PLJR. 502. Para 4 and 5 of the aforesaid judgment are being reproduced below:—

“4. On a reading of the section, it would be clear that it deals only with prosecution for an offence under the Act coming to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capacity. It, in effect, provides that where an offence comes to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capacity, a prosecution may be commenced by or with the permission of any of the officers mentioned in the section. The section can possibly have no application to cases in which offences are committed under the Act, but the offences do not come to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capacity. If the Registering Officer does not know in his official capacity that the document produced before him is a false document or that the person appearing before him is personating some other person, the section has no application. The section is not prohibitory in that it does not preclude a private person from commencing a prosecution. Even in a case where the commission of an offence comes to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in his official capacity, the section does not prohibit a private person from commencing a prosecution as the section is clearly permissive in its language and intent. In other