ORDER :

1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in both the applications and both the applications arise out of the selfsame FIR, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The present applications have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside of the FIR being C.R.No.I-68 of 2018 registered with Kadi Police Station, District Mehsana for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 467, 468, 469, 471, 323, 504, 506(2), 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR qua the applicants.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1. That one FIR being C.R.No.I-68 of 2018 came to be registered by the complainant with Kadi Police Station, District Mehsana for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 467, 468, 469, 471, 323, 504, 506(2), 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against 7 accused persons, inter alia, alleging that before about one and half years, talks of marriage of his daughter with accused No.6 were going on and daughter of the complainant used to go to the house of accused No.6 and accused No.6 also used to come to the house of the complainant and before about six months, complainant came to know negative things about the character of accused No.6 from his relatives. The complainant, therefore, was not agreeable for the marriage of his daughter with accused No.6. However, the parents of accused No.6 tried to create pressure upon the complainant for marriage of their son with the daughter of the complainant from the relatives of the complainant but the complainant refused to do so. Thereafter, the daughter of the complainant ran away with accused No.6 and on 03.01.2018, complainant got one courier wherein marriage certificate of his daughter and accused No.6 was found. It is the case of the prosecution that though the date of birth of accused No.6 is 16.04.1998, only for the purpose of performing marriage, he has created forged school leaving certificate and changed his date of birth from 16.04.1998 to 16.04.1996. It is also alleged that though accused nos. 1 to 4 were having sufficient knowledge about the correct age of the accused No.6, they helped accused No.6 to get married to the complainant’s daughter and thereby committed the alleged offence. The complainant, therefore, registered FIR against all the accused persons.

4. Heard learned advocates Mr. Kuldip Acharya appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Mrugen K. Purohit and learned advocate Mr. Dave for the applicants and learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent – State.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Acharya submits that applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.7892 of 2018 is an Advocate-cum-Notary and it is alleged that he had notarized the documents at the relevant time. Learned advocate Mr. Acharya further submits that as per Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, no court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the said Act unless a complaint in writing has been made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no compliance of statutory requirement of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952. Learned advocate Mr. Acharya has put reliance upon the decision of this Court in Pankajbhai Ratilal Bakeri v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 (1) Crimes (HC) 139 and submitted that in similar set of facts and circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed and set aside the FIR. Learned advocate Mr. Acharya, therefore, submits that the issue involved in the present applications is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision and therefore the FIR in question may be quashed and set aside qua the applicant.

6. Learned advocate Mr