The main legal point established is that the cognizance of an offense committed by a notary under the Notaries Act can only be taken upon a written complaint by an authorized officer, as per Section 13 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. MENGDEY, J.

1. By filing the present Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner [Original Accused No. 10] has made the following prayers:

“(A) Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow this petition, in the interest of justice.

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-54/2014 registered with Patan City ‘A’ Division Police Station and all further proceedings in pursuance thereto, in the interest of justice.

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the further proceedings of impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-54/2014 registered with Patan City ‘A’ Division Police Station, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this application.

(D) Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.”`

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present Application are such that the Applicant herein is a Practicing Advocate and a Notary, operating at Chanasma District Patan.

2.1 On 22.3.2014, two Affidavits came to be affirmed before the present Applicant; one by Rana Nirav Dharmendrabhai and Thakore Madhvi Pradhanji jointly, and the another individually, by Thakore Madhvi Pradhanji. Thakore Madhvi Pradhanji happens to be the daughter of Respondent No. 2, who had eloped with Accused No. 1 Rana Niravkumar Dharmeshbhai. In the aforesaid Affidavits, it has been stated that both Rana Nirav Dharmeshbhai and Thakore Madhvi Pradhanji have performed marriage on 27.3.2014. Thus, though the Affidavit has been affirmed on 22.3.2014, what is stated in the Affidavit is that the marriage has been performed on 27.3.2014.

2.2 In the background of these facts, Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR in question. It is also alleged in the FIR that there are several other discrepancies in the contents of the Affidavits affirmed before the present Applicant.

3. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Dhruti G. Pandya appearing for the Applicant. She submitted that the Applicant is a Practicing Advocate and a Notary operating at Village Chanasma, District Patan. The Applicant in the present case has acted in due diligence and has authenticated the Affidavits of the concerned persons. There was no criminal intention on part of the present Applicant in affirming those Affidavits. She further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Notaries Act there is a bar against taking cognizance of the offence committed by a Notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Notaries Act unless the complaint in writing is given by an officer authorized by the Central Government or a State Government. In the present case, no complaint as provided under Section 13 of the Notaries Act has been given by an authorized officer and therefore the present FIR is not maintainable against the present Applicant. She therefore submitted to allow the present Application.

4. The learned Advocate has sought to rely upon the following judgments of this Court in support of her submission:

(i) Criminal Misc. Application No. 9466 of 2019 in case of Mita Maganbhai Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and Another decided on 12.02.2023.

(ii) Criminal Misc. Application No. 20274 of 2019 in case of Harishkumar Balchandra Rajput vs. State of Gujarat decided on 9.6.2021.

5. The Application is vehemently opposed by learned APP Mr. Manan S. Mehta appearing for the Respondent State. He submitted that the Affidavits affirmed by the concerned persons before the present Applicant contained apparently false averments and it was the duty of the present Applicant to verify the contents of the Affidavits. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Anil C. Thakore appearing for Respondent No. 2 has also opposed the present Application.

7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record.

8. From the FIR, it appears that the present Applicant h