##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3717 of 2026

Date: 07.04.2026

Between:

Vangala Venkata Srinivas Rao

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another.

...Respondents : O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused

No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2026 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam, for the offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’).

2. Brief facts of the case Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that he conducted

a search of the Xerox shop of accused No.1 and found blank bond papers bearing the signature of the petitioner. He further stated that accused No.1 used to pay Rs.60/- per bond to the petitioner and sold

2

the same in the market for Rs.250/- per bond paper. It is also stated

that 36 such bond papers were seized.

3. Heard Mr. C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the final report, the ingredients of the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, the trial Court is not entitled to take cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the said Act, except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf. He also submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Sri Praveen Kumar Adyapady and another v. The State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1825. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings is a clear abuse of the process of law.

3

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed the offence. Whether the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation is true or not has to be adjudicated by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial, and the grounds raised in the criminal petition involve disputed questions of fact. Hence, the

petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is discharging his duties as a notary pursuant to the certificate issued by the competent authority,

dated 09.10.2019, and the said certificate is still in force.

7. It is relevant to extract the provision of Section 13 of the

Notaries Act:

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 authorised 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 offence punishable

under this Act.

The above said provision clearly envisages that a complaint in writing must be made by the Central Government or a State Government, by

4

general or special order in this behalf, before the Court can take

cognizance.

8. In the case on hand, based on the police complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence und