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 Act, even for abetment under child marriage laws.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No.91/2024, dated 18.05.2024, under Section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, (for short, ‘the Act’) registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings i.e. case No.308/2024, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Gaytri Devi and Others, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate, duly assisted by Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that no case much less under Section 10 of the Act is made out against the petitioner for the reason that there is no evidence that petitioner herein conducted, directed or abeted child marriage inter se persons namely Pushp Raj and Riya, aged 19 and 20 respectively, rather he being Public Notary only attested the affidavit, that too in the presence of independent witnesses, who claimed above named persons to be major. Above named counsel further argued that otherwise also, Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, clearly provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a Notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions, save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in that regard. In support of his aforesaid argument, he placed reliance upon judgment dated 14.07.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MMO No.1069 of 2024, titled as Jagdish Kumar Negi Vs. State of H.P. and Another , and judgment dated 27.02.2026, passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No.754 of 2024, titled as Dalip Singh Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and Another , wherein taking note of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, this Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of BNSS), proceeded to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the Notary Public.

3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a Notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Notaries Act, submitted that petitioner herein, being an Advocate and Notary Public, was well aware of the fact that no boy having age less than 21 years could solemnise marriage and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for him to attest the affidavit of person namely Pushp Raj, who at relevant time was 19 years of age. Mr. Panwar submitted that mere identification/verification, if any, by the independent witness may not be sufficient to rule out the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of offence punishable under Section 10 of the Act. He submitted that since Challan already stands filed in the competent Court of law and matter is listed for framing of Charge, it may not be appropriate for this Court to exercise power under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the FIR, rather petitioner herein can raise defences/submissions sought to be raised in the instant proceedings before the learned trial Court at the time of framing of Charge.

4. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective