Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
Malu K. W/o Prabhakaran – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations against the petitioner revolve around alleged forgery in notarizing documents. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution claims lack compliance with the notaries act. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court requires compliance with section 13 for valid prosecution. (Para 5) |
ORDER :
1. The 3rd accused in CC No. 222 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam arising out of Crime No. 521 of 2021 filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC praying for quashing all further proceedings. The petitioner is the practicing lawyer and a notary public. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused persons are under Section 465, 468 and 471 IPC.
2. The allegation is that the accused persons 1 and 2 with the help of the petitioner create a fabricated consent letter on 21.05.2021 purported to be executed by the defacto complainant and produced the same before the Kozhikode Corporation and obtained license for conducting a cool bar and bakery.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being a notary public for taking cognizance of any offence committed by him, the mandate of Section 13 (i) of the Notaries Act is to be c
Mandatory compliance with Section 13 of the Notaries Act is required for prosecuting a notary public, failing which cognizance of the offence cannot be taken.
Prosecution of a Notary Public requires a complaint from the Central/State Government under the Notaries Act.
Notary immune from prosecution for official acts without authorized government complaint under Section 13(1) Notaries Act.
No cognizance of offences by notary in exercise of functions under Notaries Act without written complaint by authorized officer of Central/State Government. FIR quashed for non-compliance with Sectio....
No court can take cognizance of offences by a Notary in exercise or purported exercise of functions without written complaint by authorized Central/State Government officer per Section 13 Notaries Ac....
The Notary's failure to verify the identity of the deponent during notarization constitutes professional misconduct, negating protections under the Notaries Act.
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 ....
A notary cannot be held liable for notarizing a document that is part of forgery or conspiracy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
