Point of Law: No cognizance can be taken against the present applicant in terms of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952. It is apparent from the provisions of Section 13 of the Notaries Act that if the offence is committed by Notary while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his functions under the Act, a complaint can be lodged only as provided under Section 13 of the Act and the Court can take cognizance of such offence only if the complaint is made in the manner laid down in the Section. There is no allegation of any moral turpitude.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State. The notice was issued by this Court on 23.10.2019. Though served, none appears for respondent no.2 – original complainant. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally today.

2. The present application has been filed by the applicant, who is an Advocate-cum-Notary, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-25 of 2019, dated 13.03.2019 registered with Adalaj Police Station, Dist.: Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of I.P.C. and the charge-sheet dated 29.06.2019, and further quashing of Criminal Case No.5174 of 2019 pending before the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar.

3. Few facts relevant for consideration of the present petition are stated hereinbelow:

3.1 The family dispute arose between the complainant and accused nos.1 to 3. The complainant is the son of accused no.3 and brother of accused nos.1 and 2. The present applicant being a Notary has been arrayed as accused no.4 in the context of Power of Attorney which was executed on 21.05.2004 in favour of the father – accused no.3. The F.I.R. was lodged and charge-sheet came to be filed.

3.2 The record shows that vide order dated 07.08.2019 in Special Criminal Application No.5101 of 2019, the impugned F.I.R. came to be quashed by this Court qua the father – Jivrajbhai Vastabhai Desai, and by order dated 07.08.2019 in Special Criminal Application No.5102 of 2019 the F.I.R. was quashed qua the other two accused, who are the brothers of the complainant.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Vimal A.Purohoit for the applicant submitted that the family dispute was inter se resolved and the F.I.R. against the co-accused was ordered to be quashed. The police authority filed the charge-sheet against the present applicant, who is a Notary and one Tarangbhai Rohitbhai Dave before whom the Power of Attorney came to be notarized. Mr. Purohit submitted that as per the Search Report before the Sub- Registrar, Gandhinagar, it was revealed that one ‘Kabulatno Dastawage’ (Confirmation Deed) was executed, registered on 06.01.2020 after quashment of F.I.R. against the accused nos.1, 2 and 3. Mr. Purohit referring to the copy of the said document, registered on 06.01.2020, submitted that the complainant has waived the dispute of the power of attorney, which was created by him in favour of his father Jivrajbhai Vastabhai Desai and on the strength of the said power of attorney, Sale- Deed was registered which has been confirmed by the complainant and now the same stands binding to the parties. The said Sale-Deed was subject matter of dispute between the parties.

5. Advocate Mr. Purohit, submitted that the Investigating Officer ought to have applied his mind and should have taken into consideration the civil disputes between the father and son regarding the family properties. The Confirmation Deed dated 06.01.2020 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar at serial no.532 confirms and affirms the Power of Attorney and registered Sale–Deed No.7366 dated 12.06.2018, whereby the land owned by the complainant came to be transferred. Mr. Purohit submitted that the present applicant had been joined in the capacity of being a Notary before whom the disputed Power of Attorney came to be executed. Mr. Purohit further submitted that dispute was absolutely civil in nature and when disputing parties have resolved their differences and when alleged power of attorney has been accepted and subsequent Sale-Deed on the basis of Power of Attorney has been confirmed by the complainant, nothing remains in the matter and therefore none of the ingredients under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of I.P.C. would be attracted against the present applicant.

6. Mr. Purohit, learned advocate for the applicant vehemently contended that it is the responsibility of t