##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9617/2013 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026

0.22390117290945366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 9617 of 2013

==========================================================

SANJIV SUMANLAL MEHTA Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR RONAK RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

Date : 01/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya was not present, and as the matter has been pending since 2013, this Court deems it fit to proceed with the

matter.

2. This Court has passed the following order on

18.03.2026:

“At the request of learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya, the matter is kept on 20.03.2026.”

3. This Court has also passed following order on

25.03.2026:

“In the first round, colleague of learned advocate Мг.

Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:49:03 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9617/2013 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026

0.22390117290945366

Mangukiya requested for pass over. Thereafter, in the second session, the colleague of learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya requested for time on the ground that due to the medical emergency, learned advocate Mr.

Mangukiya had to leave the Court.

In the interest of justice, the matter is kept on 01.04.2026 and shall be taken up in the first round, even if learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya would not be

there.”

4. The present application is filed for quashing of the FIR registered with Lathi Police Station, Amreli against the present applicant and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467,

468, 471, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The allegation in the FIR is that, by way of a forged document of partition amongst coparceners, the ancestral property of the first informant and his cousins came to be mutated in the names of the cousins. It is further alleged that the present applicant notarized afÏdavits purportedly executed by Kashiben on 07.06.2011, despite her having expired on 17.05.1999, and by Mukeshbhai, who had expired on 10.05.1992. The present application has been filed primarily on the ground that the applicant, being a notary, is protected under Section 13 of the

Notaries Act, 1952, which reads as under:

Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 22:49:03 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9617/2013 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2026

0.22390117290945366

“13. Cognizance of offence.-

(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under this Act save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by

general or special order in this behalf.

(2) No magistrate other than a presidency magistrate or a magistrate of the first class shall try an office

punishable under this Act.”

6. A bare reading of Section 13 makes it abundantly clear that it bars the Court from taking cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Act, except upon a complaint in writing made by an ofÏcer authorized by the Central or State Government. In the present case, it prima facie appears that the acts attributed to the applicant do not fall within the legitimate discharge of his functions as a notary. Moreover, the investigation against the applicant is still at a nascent stage. Therefore, the mere registration of the FIR cannot be interdicted at this stage, as the bar under Section 13 of the Notaries Act would operate only at the stage of taking cognizance. In that background, it cannot be