Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. Petitioner Gian Singh is seeking quashing of FIR No. 369/2004 registered at police station Tilak Marg under Sections 420/467/468/469/471/120B against the petitioner and the other co-accused.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that on the complaint of Smt. Savitri Goenka pursuant to orders passed on an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. the present case was registered. Complainant Savitri Goenka had alleged that a forged will dated 21.3.2003 of late Ashwni Kumar Goenka the son of the complainant had been set up by Kusum Lata Damani, Anup Kapoor, petitioner Gian Singh and Ashok Jain an advocate whereby the beneficiary of the properties of the deceased was Kusum Lata Damani. In the course of the investigation this will had been sent to the CFSL and the CFSL had opined that the signature of late Ashwani Kumar Goenka in the will dated 21.3.2003 did not match with his admitted signatures; the will was thus opined to be a forged and fabricated document. Petitioner herein was the notary who had attested the will.

3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner is a 75 years old man. He had notarized the will in his official capacity. He is protected under Section 13 of the Notaries Act 1952 by virtue of which no cognizance can be taken of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under this Act save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Central Government or a State Government. It is stated that in these circumstances the petitioner having acted in his capacity as a notary, the cognizance of the offences taken against him in terms of the order dated 10.7.2006 and 18.9.2006 is bad and liable to be set aside. At best the allegations levelled against the petitioner disclose an offence under Section 188 of the IPC for which also the procedure as contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. has to be followed; in the absence of which, the cognizance of such an offence is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of Bombay High Court reported as Chandmal Moti Lal Bora v. State of Maharashtra, 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 41 to substantiate his argument that Section 13 adequately protects the acts of a notary which he had performed as per Section 8 of the said Act. It is submitted that the ratio of this judgment had granted protection to the notaries to protect them from a false and vexatious implication in numerous offences in which they could be embroiled because numerous documents are notarised by a notary in the normal course of duty in his notarial register which may be for the offences of cheating, blackmailing and other commercial transactions but a notary is not supposed to know each and every person before him for the purpose of notifying a document in his notarial register; he is not supposed to know truth behind the documents brought before him for entries; such a person being an advocate performs his function in his capacity as a professional; it was with this view that Section 13 of the Notaries Act had been promulgated by the legislature. The act of the petitioner is adequately protected by this provision.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 2009 IV AD Delhi 477 C.P. Thakur v. CBI as also another judgment reported in 2009 VIII AD SC 630 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetia Sahai to support his submission that a similar provision is contained in Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. which grants an immunity to a public servant from a malicious prosecution without a valid sanction.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 1973 SCC (CRI) 309 Hira Lal Jain v. Delhi Administration to support his submission that where in the charge sheet allegations are only of a conspiracy and there is no prima facie evidence of the same, petitioner on the merits as well would be entitled to a discharge.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner in fact