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 the Notaries Act.

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 and allegedly the said advocate took the details of the legal heirs of Manjibhai. It is further alleged that the said advocate, in connivance with other co-accused, showed one Gomtiben, as a legal heir of Manjibhai and in addition to other legal heirs and on 31.07.2006, a forged and fabricated application for mutating the names in the revenue record was made, bearing forged signatures of the respondent no.2 and his brothers and sisters and it is also alleged that a false affidavit dated 29.07.2006 was created in a similar manner, though, Gomtiben is not related to the respondent no.2, her name came to be entered in the revenue record of the ancestral lands of the respondent no.2.

2.2. It is further alleged in the said application dated 31.07.2006, names of 6 heirs of Gomitben were stated and in the affidavit even their addresses were mentioned and legal heirs of Gomtiben were identified by one advocate Shri C.K. Tiwari. It is alleged that, false documents were created and even a false pedigree of father of the respondent no. 2 was created with a view to grab the ancestral land of the respondent no.2. It is alleged that, on 18.06.2006, Talati, Upleta made a rough entry showing names of the legal heirs of Gomtiben alongwith name of legal heirs of Manjibhai. It is alleged that, no notice under Section 135-D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 is served upon the real heirs of Manjibhai and forged signatures of the real heirs have been made on such documents.

2.3. It is alleged that, one application for relinquishment of rights is allegedly fabricated in the name of one Shri Vinodbhai J. Patel, who is shown as heir of Gomtiben and on 22.11.2010, false affidavits have been created, wherein, allegedly the accused no.3 has identified the respondent no.2 and one notary Shri Vagadia has affirmed the affidavits of the respondent no.2 and his real brothers and sisters have never gone before such notary and therefore, dummy persons impersonated them.

2.4. It is alleged that, therefore, application of relinquishment of rights and other affidavits are forged and produced before the E-Dhara Officer, Upleta and on 15.11.2010 and even stamp is purchased in the name of the respondent no.2 and his brothers and sisters, wherein, even their addresses are not correct. It is further alleged that the respondent no.2 or his brothers or sisters have not purchased any stamp and have not gone before the notary Shri Vagadia in the year 2011, without calling respondent no.2 or his brothers or sisters, the entry of Shri Vinodbhai Patel and Shri Rajubhai Patel, as legal heirs of Gomtiben, is mutated in the ancestral lands of the respondent no.2. It is further alleged that, all the accused persons have committed a fraud and even in Appeal No. 78/11-12, Deputy Collector, Dhoraji, has