ORDER :

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant herein has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No. I- 04 of 2017 registered at Mandvi Police Station, District : Surat Rural, on 12.01.2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 114 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant herein-accused no.23.

3. The brief facts germane for adjudication of the present application are stated thus:

3.1. It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons in collusion with others had prepared one power of attorney dated 24.04.2002 for grabbing the land bearing Survey No. 314 situated at Village: Bodhan, Taluka: Mandvi and on 25.03.2002, the co-owners of the said land brought two persons in place of deceased Moh. Musa and Hafizbibi before the notary, though they were deceased, at that point of time, and prepared power of attorney and accused nos. 16 and 17 had signed as witnesses and the accused no.23- present applicant has notarized the said document and on the basis of the power of attorney, the registered sale deed was executed in favour of accused no.20- Bharatbhai Shambhubhai Patel, and thus, all the accused committed the offence as alleged in the complaint, as referred above.

3.2. The present applicant is accused no. 23 and is an Advocate and Notary. The applicant herein has a valid license of Notary from the year 1987 and he is practicing advocate since the year 1975 before the competent court situated at Vyara.

3.3. The applicant herein has notarized the documents, as a part of his duty and the documents were notarized after the witnesses have identified the after signatures of all the persons, who have executed power of attorney. The Notary (present applicant) has not to decide regarding the correctness of the contents made in the document and he has simply notarized the document, after the witnesses to the said document have identified and identified the witnesses.

3.4. There is a bar under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 to the effect that no Court shall take cognizance of the 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 authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf. No Magistrate other than a presidency Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act.

4. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

4.1. Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, at the outset submitted that the applicant has a valid license and is protected under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, and hence, the impugned F.I.R. is not maintainable against the present applicant, who has only notarized the documents i.e. power of attorney, which is alleged to contain to forged signature of the two co-owners.

4.2. Ms. Shah, learned counsel submitted that the applicant has nothing to do with the private dispute of the property between the complainant and other accused persons. Ms. Shah, learned counsel further submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant herein that he has prior knowledge of fraud and there is noting on record that the present applicant is benefited by disputed transactions and taking the case of the prosecution as it is, no offence as alleged in the complaint is made out against the applicant herein.

4.3. Ms. Shah, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the order passed by this Court dated 09.06.2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 20274 of 2019, wherein, the coordinate bench has quashed the F.I.R. filed against accused -Notary Advocate. Ms. Shah, learned counsel further placed reliance on the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the coordinate bench passed in Criminal Misc. Applicat