SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, K.Govindharaj, JJ
K.Govindharaj – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Arokia Mani Raj
For the Respondents: Ms.K.Aswini Devi Additional Government Pleader [R1 to R4]

Registering officer's discretion under Sections 82-83 of Registration Act cannot be compelled by mandamus; petitioner must file private complaint.

Headnote:The Registration Act, 1908, particularly Sections 82 and 83, vests discretion in the registering officer to initiate prosecution for false statements, false copies of translations, false personation, or abetment in registered documents. Essential facts involve a representation dated 23.01.2026 requesting the Sub-Registrar to lodge a complaint against alleged violators. The court finds no mandamus can compel the registering authority to exercise its discretion. The primary issue is whether a writ court can direct prosecution under Sections 82 and 83. The ratio decidendi holds that the registering officer's discretion cannot be compelled via writ petition; the petitioner must lodge a private criminal complaint to invoke criminal law. The writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a criminal complaint against the alleged violators.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks mandamus for prosecution under section 83. (Para 1 , 2)
2. discretion of registering officer cannot be compelled. (Para 3 , 4)
3. writ dismissed; liberty to file private complaint. (Para 5)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 4th respondent to launch criminal prosecution against the respondents 5 to 8 as per the provisions of Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 (in short ‘the Act’) based on the petitioner’s representation dated 23.01.2026, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Ms.K.Aswini Devi, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 5 to 8 in this writ petition, notice to the respondents 5 to 8 is dispensed with by this Court.

3. As per Section 82 read with Section 83 of the Act, the discretion is vested with the registering officer to launch prosecution in case false statements/delivering false copies of translations/false personation/abetment was made by any of the parties to the registered document. Being a discretion vested with the registering officer, the petitioner cannot compel the registering authority to launch prosecution as per provisions of Section 82 read with Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 against respondents 5 to 8, who according to the petitioner had committed violations, which falls within the purview of Section 82 read with Section 83 of the Act. Therefore, once a representation has been given by the petitioner on 23.01.2026 to respondents 1 to 4 requesting them to launch prosecution against respondents 5 to 8 as per provisions of Section 82 read with Section 83 of the Act, the petitioner cannot file a writ petition before this Court compelling the 4th respondent to launch prosecution against respondents 5 to 8.

4. Section 82 read with Section 83 of the Act does not stipulate that once a representation is given by any party directing the registering authority to launch prosecution, necessarily, the registering authority will have to launch prosecution against the alleged erring authorities as per provisions of Section 82 read with Section 83 of the Act. Being a discretion vested with the registering officer, the question of directing 4th respondent to further proceed with the petitioner’s representation dated 23.01.2026, which is the subject matter of this writ petition does not arise. If 4th respondent has not launched prosecution under Section 82 read with Section 83 of the Act, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to set the criminal law in motion by lodging a criminal complaint against respondents 5 to 8 for the alleged violations committed under Section 82 of the Act.

5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that this writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to set the criminal law in motion if so advised by lodging a criminal complaint before the concerned police against respondents 5 to 8 in case respondents 5 to 8 have committed violations as per provisions of Section

82 read with Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top