IMPORTANT POINT
A notary cannot be held liable for notarizing a document that is part of forgery or conspiracy.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to quash the charge-sheet against him in CC No.46 of 2017, which is split up from CC No.85 of 2012, on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Mohd.Azhar, learned Counsel the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

3. The main accusation against the petitioner in CC No.46 of 2017 was that the petitioner, being an advocate and notary public, notarized signatures on share transfer 7-B Forms, which were showing alleged transfer of shares 10,000, 15,400 and 55,400 on 25/9/2002, 30/9/2002 and 6/11/2002 respectively pertain to LW3 to LW1's firm M/s.Transgene Biotek Limited by accused No.3 in lieu of hand loan of Rs.25,00,000.00 taken by A1. Further, the signatures therein of LW3 were disputed and hence, they wrote a letter dtd. 8/10/2002 to the petitioner to confirm attestation but no reply was reciprocated. Subsequently, accused No.3 sent legal notice dtd. 10/10/2002 to LW1's firm requesting to effect the transfer of shares but the respondent No.2 company gave reply stating that the signatures of LW3 on the share transfer certificates were forged and requested to take action against the concerned persons. Accordingly, Crime No.496 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C., on the file of SR Nagar Police Station has been registered. As per the contents of charge-sheet, it is the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner along with other accused facilitated the occurrence of offence in furtherance of common intention of cheating and forgery by attesting 7B share transfer forms in the absence of share transferor and witnesses.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the case against him is clearly hit by the provisions of Notaries Act, 1952 since the Government or the competent authority appointed alone has jurisdiction to initiate prosecution against him under Sec. 13 of the Act. Further, as per Sec. 190(1) of Cr.P.C. no Magistrate can take cognizance against the notary. He further contended that if he is subjected to undergo the trial, there is a likelihood of subjecting him to great hardship and irreparable loss and injury. Stating thus, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions :

(1) T.Senthilkumar Vs. Karikalan and others,CDJ 2021 MHC 3637.

(2) Harishkumar Balchandra Rajput Vs.State of Gujarat,CDI 2021 GHC 557.

(3) VP Jyotsna Vs. State of Kerala,CDJ 2020 Ker. HC 1103.

(4) C.Elangovan Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Chennai,CDJ 2016 MHC 5196.

(5) Mohammed Zulfekharuddin Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others,CDJ 2014 BHC 613.

(6) Ratna Vs. The State of Karnataka and another,CDJ 2014 Kar. HC 753.

(7) V.Ramakrishnan Vs. State through its Inspector of Police,CDJ 2014 MHC 1960.

(8) MG Uthappa Vs. State of Karnataka,CDJ 2013 Kar. HC 1082.

The main crux of the above citations, in brief, is that mere notarizing a document by the notary public, cannot fasten liability upon him if the said document became pivotal of any conspiracy or fraud.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation revealed prima-facie material against the petitioner showing his collusion with other accused in cheating and committing fraud in respect of share transfer certificates and hence, the same requires full-fledged trial and the petitioner cannot be discharged at this premature stage.

6. The Court below has taken cognizance of the charge-sheet by assigning CC No.85 of 2012. However, subsequently, the case against A1 and A4/petitioner herein was split-up and numbered as CC No.46 of 2017 and that the main case in CC No.85 of 2012 against the accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 ended in a