K. Kanna, J. (Oral) - (1.) The petitioner, who had lodged a complaint to the Registering Officer that two documents had been got registered by making false statement as regards the nature of property only to avoid stamp duty came by an order of the Collector initially finding that such a false statement had been made and a duty had been wrongly assessed. The respondents who preferred appeal to the Commissioner elicited an order from the latter which is impugned in the writ petition that the Collector was bound to examine whether a proceeding under Section 47-A was permissible on account of an objection regarding bar of limitation and at the same time, had stayed the proceedings under Section 82 of the Registration Act (wrongly stated as Cr.P.C.) till the proceeding of the case before the Collector.
(2.) This court, while issuing notice of motion, had restricted the enquiry only as regards the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the directions given by the Commissioner. The counsel for the petitioner states that the punishment contemplated under Section 82 was for imprisonment which could extend upto 7 years and consequently, it must be taken that it was a cognisable offence and any private individual could register a complaint. The counsel would also refer me to the decision of the Orissa High Court in Sailendra Pradhan v. Vipparla Jyoti and others-2006 Criminal Law Journal 1483 that holds that Section 82 does not prohibit the private person from commencing prosecution. While I find no error in the order of the Commissioner in so far as it directed the Collector to examine an issue of limitation as pleaded in defence, there was no warrant for the Commissioner to stay further enquiry regarding prosecution till the conclusion of proceedings before the Collector. I am of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the order of the Commissioner is intervened only to the extent of the observation that the proceedings under Section 82 will be stayed till the conclusion of the proceedings before the Collector. While an issue of limitation as defence could even be appropriate for the respondents to take, a decision on whether they were intentionally making a false statement that would render a prosecution under Section 82 appropriate cannot be defeated in the same manner by raising the bogey of bar of limitation. The Commissioner shall, therefore, take his own decision on the tenability of the complaint and follow the procedure as laid down under Section 83 of the Registration Act. The counsel for the petitioner says that he must be heard before such a decision is taken. The decision may be taken as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 12 weeks from today. It will be open to the Registering Officer to afford an enquiry as he thinks fit before choosing to either take action or not under Section 83 of the Registration Act.
(3.) The writ petition is disposed of.;