The Notary's failure to verify the identity of the deponent during notarization constitutes professional misconduct, negating protections under the Notaries Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By the present Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 12.05.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, in Criminal Revision No.22 of 2022, thereby set aside order of issuance of process passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,/3^rd Joint civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner, on30.04.2022, below Exh.1 in Criminal M.A. No.714 of 2021.

3. The present Petitioner is the original complainant and the present Respondent No.2 is the original accused No.3 in Criminal Misc. Application No.714 of 2021. For the sake of brevity, the parties to the present Petition hereinafter will be referred to in their original capacity.

4. The complainant filed a Criminal complaint bearing M.A. No.714 of 2021 and thereby prayed for initiation of criminal proceeding against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).

5. The complainant alleged that, the accused No.1 is her daughter-in-law, accused No.2 is an L.I.C. agent and Accused No.3 is a Notary Advocate. Her son and husband of the Accused no. 1 namely Dr. Amol Jangam, was a Covid-19 warrior and he died due to a Covid-19 infection while treating patients in the Hospital. The State Government declared awarding of monetary relief of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh) toward compensation due to death of her son Dr. Amol. However, the accused No.1, her daughter-in-law, in collusion with accused Nos. 2 and 3 fraudulently Notarized the document falsely showing her consent for withdrawal of compensation amount in favour of accused No.1. The complainant further alleged that, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have manufactured false and fabricated documents and got notarised said documents, therefore, the Accused has committed offences under Section 467, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

6. On 30.04.2022, the learned J.M.F.C./ 3^rd Joint C.J.J.D. Sangamner, passed an order and issued process under Section 467, 468, 420 read with 34 of I.P.C., against accused No.1 daughter-in-law (wife of deceased) and the accused No.3 the Notary but dismissed the complaint as against accused No.2, L.I.C. Agent on ground that, the accused No.1 in collusion with accused No. 3 executed Notary document “Article “F”, which is registered by accused No.3 though the Petitioner was not present while execution of the document Article "F". Since, the accused No. 3/Respondent No.2 got registered the said document, hence, he with common intention committed offences and helped the accused No.1 to fraudulently withdraw the compensation.

7. Being aggrieved by order of issuance of process dated 30.04.2022, the Accused No.3 filed Criminal Revision No.22 of 2022 before the Sessions Court. On 12.05.2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, passed the impugned order holding that, the Accused no. 3, being a Public Notary under the Notaries Act and notariesed the Affidavit Article-F in violation of provisions of Notary Act and Rules with an intention to misappropriate amount of compensation, which is professional misconduct. Therefore, the Respondent no. 3 can only be prosecuted by the competent officer authorised by the State or Central Government as provided under Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. Therefore, the order of issuance of process against accused no. 2 was set aside. Being aggrieved by said order, the complainant has presented this petition.

8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that, the learned Revisional Court failed to consider the material and statement of the present Petitioner that, Respondent No.2 while discharging the duty being a public Notary, in collusion with the original accused No.1, Notarized documents falsely showing that, the complainant/ Petitioner has consented for withdrawal of com