Back
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Ramnikbhai Vallabhbhai Sojitra – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant herein – original accused no.3 has prayed for quashing of Criminal Case No. 865 of 2014 registered before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Upleta, Dist.: Rajkot for the offences under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471, 114, 34 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the order of issuance of process vide order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Upleta, whereby, the process is issued against the applicant herein and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The brief facts germane for adjudication of the present application are stated thus:
2.1. That the respondent no.2 filed the impugned criminal complaint alleging that in the year 2006, his father – Manjibhai Padariya passed away and he had lands for which the name of the respondent no.2 and his brothers and sisters were to be entered in the revenue record as legal heirs. It is alleged that for the said purpose, the respondent no.2 contacted the advocate Shri Ramnikbhai Sojitra
The central legal point established in the judgment is the legal bar against taking cognizance of an offence committed by a notary without following the procedure as contemplated under Section 13 of ....
No cognizance of offences by notary in exercise of functions under Notaries Act without written complaint by authorized officer of Central/State Government. FIR quashed for non-compliance with Sectio....
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Add....
No court can take cognizance of offences by a Notary in exercise or purported exercise of functions without written complaint by authorized Central/State Government officer per Section 13 Notaries Ac....
The judgment emphasizes the binding nature of decisions of the High Court and the duty of subordinate courts to follow settled legal principles.
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 ....
The Notary's failure to verify the identity of the deponent during notarization constitutes professional misconduct, negating protections under the Notaries Act.
The protection under Section 13 of the Notaries Act 1952 would not be available to the notary as the act of forgery and cheating did not fall within the functions of the notary under the Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
