The central legal point established in the judgment is that for initiating proceedings against a notary, a written complaint by an authorized officer as required by Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 is essential.

ORDER :

1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing the FIR bearing C.R. No. I-77/2015 registered with Koth Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural for offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC and to terminate all the subsequent proceedings in connection with the FIR.

2. Mr. Mahida, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is a practising advocate mainly in District Court, Narmada at Rajpipla and he has been practising since the year 1999 and had built up an impeccable reputation in the District Court, Narmada at Rajpipla by his sheer hard work and sincerity as an advocate and as a result, the State Government had appointed him as District Government Pleader from March, 2012.

3. Mr. Mahida submits that the applicant had performed the work as a notary, as accused no. 1 advocate - Dharmendrasinh Gohil had approached the present applicant on 9.9.2011 and had requested for notarizing two documents, one being an affidavit and another affidavit of relinquishment, Mr. Mahida submits that advocate - Dharmendrasinh Gohil was known to the applicant since he is also a practising advocate of District Court, Narmada and all the blank areas of documents were filled in by advocate - Dharmendrasinh Gohil and in affidavit of relinquishment, even the words “identified by me” and other endorsement words as well as other endorsement are written by advocate - Dharmendrasinh Gohil and against that, accused no. 1 had signed. It is stated by Mr. Mahida that 7 persons who had identified themselves as persons named in the affidavit of relinquishment had come to the applicant and they had brought their photographs and the photocopies of the identity proofs and had signed and affixed the thumb impression against their photographs and all of them had been identified by accused no. 1.

4. Mr. Mahida submits that on account of the fact that advocate - Dharmendrasinh Gohil had brought the accused as well as other persons to the applicant in good faith and since the advocate had identified those persons, he had not asked for further identity proofs of the persons who have alleged to have impersonated the complainant and his sister.

5. Mr. Mahida submits that the applicant, as a notary, has no role to play and he himself had become victim of the fraud. He further submits that being a notary, necessary permission under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 has not been sought to file any complaint against the present applicant.

6. The facts alleged by the complainant-Bipinchandra Raval in his FIR dated 25.12.2015 that survey No. 226 of Village Kesargadh is the ancestral property and his brother Yogendra Ambalal Raval, without consent, had got the names deleted of other heirs by revenue entry no. 2178 on 17.9.2011 and after retaining his sole name, had sold the property on 14.11.2011 to Ghanshyam Patel of Katargam, Surat by sale deed no. 2977/11.

7. The complainant stated that he had made inquiry from SIT and he came to know that the said property survey No. 226 admeasuring 1-52-77 was of the joint ownership of his father-Ambalal Girdharlal and uncle-Parshuram Girdharlal and Vinayakchandra Girdharlal and after the death of his father, vide entry no. 2122 dated 2.5.2011, names of his brother-Yogendra along with his sisters-Pushpaben, Shantaben, Shardaben, Ratikantaben, Niranjanaben and Meenaben were entered and for that, entry was certified by the Circle Officer on 29.8.2011.

8. The complainant has alleged that his brother-Yogendra had impersonated him and the sisters through some other persons before the present applicant - notary and by false photographs and signature/thumb impression, the endorsement of “identified by me” was produced before the present notary and it is alleged that the notary, without taking any further evidence of the identity proof of the Deponent, had notarized the affidavit and though had knowledge that fal