Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1858
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
K. Vijayakumar
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai & Others
W.P.No.21740 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided On : 12-04-2012
For the Petitioner:J.R.K. Bhavanantham, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 & R2, V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan, AGP, R3, No appearance.
The principle of double jeopardy and the limitations on initiating parallel prosecution under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Impersonation in Power of Attorney Deed - Failure to Initiate Prosecution - Double Jeopardy
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to initiate an inquiry against the 2nd respondent for impersonation in a Power of Attorney Deed and to make necessary indication in the registered document. The petitioner alleged that the 2nd and 3rd respondents committed forgery to grab the petitioner's property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was misconceived as criminal proceedings had already been initiated for the same allegations. The court held that parallel prosecution for an offence committed under the Act would be hit by the principle of double jeopardy, and no direction could be issued to initiate prosecution against the 2nd respondent as it was not permissible under Section 83 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should direct the 1st respondent to initiate prosecution against the 2nd respondent for impersonation in the Power of Attorney Deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that initiating prosecution for the same offence twice would be hit by the principle of double jeopardy, and parallel proceedings were not permissible in law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that no direction could be issued to initiate prosecution against the 2nd respondent as it was not permissible under Section 83 of the Act.
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 ini
