Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
BINI K.V – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Key Points: - The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a case arising from a crime registered at Kaipamangalam Police Station and linked to a forged consent letter attested by the notary (!) . - The notary contends she merely performed a notarial act and was unaware of forgery; she seeks immunity from prosecution under Section 13 of the Notaries Act (!) . - Section 13(1) Notaries Act requires a written complaint by an authorized government officer for cognizance of offences by a notary, before any court can take cognizance (!) . - The court held that no cognizance can be taken without a written complaint by an authorized government officer; the FIR and final report were registered without complying with Section 13 (!) (!) . - The court concluded that the investigating officer should not have registered the FIR and quashed the FIR, final report, and proceedings against the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, while noting it does not affect actions against the other accused (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case originated from forgery allegations against notary for attesting consent letter. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner notary unaware of forgery; private complaint invalidates prosecution. (Para 2 , 4 , 8) |
| 3. section 13(1) notaries act mandates authorized government complaint for cognizance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. proceedings quashed against notary; case against 1st accused proceeds. (Para 9) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.724/2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur, (Trial Court) which has originated from Crime No.175/2024 registered by the Kaipamangalam Police Station, Thrissur, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 468, 471 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
2. The petitioner has stated in the criminal miscellaneous case that, she is a Notary Public and Advocate by profession. She has been arraigned as the 2nd accused in the crime on the sole allegation she had notarised a consent letter of the 3rd respondent (defacto complainant), which was forged by the 1st accused. The petitioner has only done a notarial act in exercise of the powers conferred o
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
