1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘the Code’ for short) for quashing the FIR, being C.R. No.I-76 of 2017 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) read with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant-respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR on 24.4.2017, alleging forgery on the ground that he never sent any document and the petitioner had forged the document by notarizing the same. It is also contended that the complainant has not put any signature in the register of the petitioner, who is a Notary, and without his presence, the notary has notarized the so-called rent agreement.

2.1. It is also alleged that the complainant has house at D-56, Kumkum Residency, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad and it was vacant and therefore, in July 2014, one Nitinkumar Purshottambhai Chauhan, resident of Bapunagar, had asked him on mobile as to whether his house is vacant and he wants to give it on rental basis. It is also alleged that therefore, he had informed that the key of the house is with one Nileshbhai Shah, resident of Chandkheda, and he informed him that he may get it on rental basis if found suitable to him. It is also alleged that thereafter, Nitinkumar agreed to take his house on rental basis and on asking by Nitinkumar, he has agreed to give the premises on rent and permitted him to shift the household articles in the said premises and told him that whenever he comes in Chandkheda, he will execute rent agreement. It is also stated that thereafter, he went to Surat and when he was in Surat, said Nitinkumar came in Surat and brought the rent agreement on hundred rupees stamp paper, wherein the period was shown as 11 months and 29 days and at that time, he informed him that it may be notarized in Surat but at that time, Nitinkumkar had told him that he is not in hurry and as and when the complainant comes in Chandkheda, they will get it notarized in Ahmedabad. It is also alleged that thereafter, he came in Chandkheda and inquired about Nitinkumar and at that time, his wife had told him that Nitinkumar has gone out of station and informed him that they will vacate the house within 10 days.

2.2. It is also alleged that in the meanwhile, in the month of May 2015, when he approached Nitinkumar for vacating the premises, at that time, Nitinkumar quarreled with him and told him that if he insisted him to vacate the premises, then he would get a complaint of rape lodged through his wife and thereafter, Nitinkumar called the police and gave threat to him. It is also alleged that thereafter, Nitinkumar filed an application in Gandhinagar Court and placed the copy of the rent agreement. It is alleged that on perusal of the same, it was found that it was for the period of 1 year, 11 month and 29 days and it was notarized before the present petitioner.

2.3. According to the complainant, the alleged rent agreement was false and when he approached the present petitioner, he informed him that Nitinkumar came with rent agreement on hundred rupees stamp paper for its notarization and told him that the owner/landlord Jagdishbhai Solanki is on his leg and would come later on. It is also alleged that therefore, the complainant asked him to show his notary register, wherein there was no signature of him and on that basis, it is alleged by the complainant that with connivance of Nitinkumar, the present accused has created the false document and has committed the alleged offences.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that there is no ingredient of the offences alleged in the FIR against the present petitioner. It is contended that the impugned FIR against the present petitioner is filed with oblique and ulterior motive for causing unwarranted harassment. It is also contended that the FIR is not maintainable inasmuch as prior to the date of the impugned FIR, the responde