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

2020 Supreme(Bom) 325

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
Devyani D/o Govind Ambilwade - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department and Ors - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No.1226 of 2018
Decided On : 05-03-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. SS Halkude, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mrs.PV Diggikar, APP Mr.Mayur Salunke, Adv. h/for Mr. VD Salunke, Mr. AV Hon, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for good faith in the official acts of notaries and public servants, and the protection granted to them under the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureau Act, 1998 and the Notaries Act.

Headnote:

Forgery - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code - Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureau Act - Notaries Act - [FIR] - [Sections 466, 366, 468, 469, 471, 500, 501, 506, 511, 34 of Indian Penal Code] - [Sections 17, 18, 13 of Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureau Act, 1998] - [Section 13 of the Notaries Act] - The court discussed the protection granted to notaries and public servants under the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureau Act, 1998 and the Notaries Act. It highlighted the duty of the criminal court to ascertain whether the allegations directly concern the official duty of a notary and the need for a complaint in writing by an authorized officer to take cognizance of the offence against a notary. The court also emphasized the requirement for good faith in the official acts of public servants and the protection provided under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging forgery and fabrication of documents related to her marriage. The accused, a notary and a marriage registrar, filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming protection under the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureau Act, 1998 and the Notaries Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused had acted in good faith in their official capacity as notary and registrar, and therefore deserved protection under the relevant laws. It held that there was no illegality or error in the decision to discharge the accused.

Issues: The issues revolved around the protection granted to notaries and public servants under the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureau Act, 1998 and the Notaries Act, and the requirement for good faith in their official acts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the criminal court to ascertain whether the allegations directly concern the official duty of a notary and the need for a complaint in writing by an authorized officer to take cognizance of the offence against a notary. It also highlighted the requirement for good faith in the official acts of public servants and the protection provided under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision to discharge the accused and finding no grounds to set aside the order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition has been filed by the original informant for challenging the order passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Parbhani below Ex.31 in S.T. No.112 of 2013 on 13- 02-2018; thereby allowing the discharge application under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by original accused No.14 and 15, i.e. present respondent No.2 and 3.

2. Present petitioner has filed First Information Report (FIR) on 15-01-2013 with Nanalpeth Police Station, Parbhani vide Cr. No.11 of 2013; alleging that the accused persons have committed offence punishable under Section 466, 366, 468, 469, 471, 500, 501, 506, 511 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. It was contended by the informant in her FIR that she had taken admission in Dnyanopasak Mahavidyalaya Parbhani for M.Com. course. Prior to that she has completed her B.Com. from Pune. She was residing with her father at Bhajangalli, Parbhani. Accused No.8 is the husband of her maternal aunt who resides at Nasik and carries out bakery and leather item business. He has son by name Amol aged 28 years. He used to go to Pune for business on many occasions. He used to visit the hostel of the informant for giving delivery of tiffin given by his mother. Informant has no occasion to raise suspicion over him as he was her cousin. However, she could feel the difference in his behaviour about 1 to 1½ years prior to FIR. He used to get emotional while talking on phone and also used to make advances. She had given him understanding about the said behaviour. She had told about his conduct to her parents. When her parents raised the said issue with his parents, Amol had accepted his mistake and assured about good behaviour in future. The period of six months thereafter went smoothly. Thereafter, a year prior to FIR, there were talks about the marriage proposals of informant and there was approval from a groom from Nasik. When Amol got knowledge about the same, he went to the house of that groom and gave wrong information to them that there was love affair between him and informant. The said marriage could not take place. The relatives of informant went to Nasik and gave understanding to Amol and his parents. Informant was about to lodge the report, but was prevented by the relatives.

3. The informant has further stated that Amol had tried to contact with her on phone after she started residing at Parbhani. She refused to talk to him. There was an attempt to abduct her by Amol and his friends, when she was returning from college. She came across her photo on the Parbhani edition of Daily Lokmat on 13-01-2013. The news was in respect of blessings to her on her marriage with Amol. A photograph was published wherein she was shown with Amol with garlands. It was an advertisement given by one Altaf Salim Shaikh. She as well as her family members were shocked by the said news. Many people came to greet her after reading the news. Her father and uncle made inquiry with Lokmat office and came to know that the said advertisement was given by their Nasik office for publishing it in Parbhani edition. The said office made her available certain documents from their Nasik office. Those documents were given to her on 14-01-2013. She was shocked to see those documents. There was a bond paper purchased in her name on which there was joint affidavit of herself and Amol stating that they have performed marriage at 12-35 p.m. on 24-04-2012 at Aurangabad road, Nasik. Name of the priest and witnesses were also mentioned. The said document was notarized with Notary - Vasant Pekhale. She says that the said affidavit is false. She had never gone to Nasik on 18-06-2012. She then collected the certificate of marriage from Nasik Municipal Corporation. It was realized that somebody had impersonated her and it was shown that she got married to Amol. All those documents have been fabricated and the photos were also got prepared by using photo-trick. The news regarding the marriage was published after about 8 month

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top