Crl.Misc.No.M- 44170 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 5.9.2011 Crl.Misc.No.M- 44170 of 2007 (O&M) Darshna Devi and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.82 dated 2.8.2007 registered at Police Station Nathana District Bathinda under Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the registering authority found that at the time of registration of the sale deed dated 2.8.2006 qua land measuring 8 kanals situated at Burj Kalan Singh Wala, South Ward No.12 Bhucho Mandi by Darshana Devi in favour of her sons, she had shown wrong sides of Crl.Misc.No.M- 44170 of 2007 2 the property and had presented the sale deed for registration at lesser rate. Action was also ordered to be taken against the vendor and the vendees under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Criminal proceedings were also initiated against the vendors and the vendees under Section 82 of the Registration Act. The petitioners had made up the deficiency in the court fee in proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act . However, no offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act was made out against the petitioners. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on MT Gobindia and others vs. King Emperor AIR 1924 Patna 754, wherein, it was held as under:- “The proceeding or enquiry referred to in the Section must be a proceeding or enquiry as prescribed by the Act. The Act nowhere prescribes any enquiry by the Registration Officer as regards the truth or falsity of any recital in a deed. All that the Registering Officer is required to enquire into is as to whether the document represented before him for registration was or was not executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed the enquiries prescribed are those provided for in Section 34 and Section 35 of the Registration Act, and I am clearly of opinion that the Sub-Registrar had no jurisdiction to enquire as regards the truth or falsity of any recital in the deed and the enquiry as contemplated by Section 82, el.(a) does not refer to an enquiry as regards the truth or falsity of any recital in the deed.” Crl.Misc.No.M- 44170 of 2007 3 Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners were liable to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petitions deserve to be allowed. Section 82 of the Registration Act reads as under:- “.Penalty for making false statements delivering false copies or translations false personation, an abetment.-Whoever— (a) intentionally makes any false statement, whether on oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or (b) intentionally delivers to a registering officer, in any proceeding under section 19 or section 21, a false copy or translation of a document, or a false copy of a map or plan; or (c) falsely personates another, and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission to be issued, or does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or (d) abets anything made punishable by this Act; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” A perusal of the above provision reveals that a person Crl.Misc.No.M- 44170 of 2007 4 who makes a false statement or delivers false copies or translations, or falsely impersonates another person or abets anything made punishable under the Registration Act is liable for penalty. However, in the present case, the petitioners by showing the property to be sold of lesser value were liable to be dealt with under the Indian Stamp Act. The petitioners were to make up the deficiency in the stamp duty under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Admittedly, the petitioners have paid the requisite amount. Hence, criminal proceedings launched against the petitioners under the Registration Act are liable to be quashed as the petitioners could not have been proceeded under the said Act. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.82 dated 2.8.2007 under Section 82 of the Registration Act registered at Police Station Nathana District Bathinda and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 05, 2011 anita