Kerala HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Notary Under Section 13

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has set aside criminal proceedings against a notary public, reinforcing the mandatory statutory protections granted to notaries when acting in their official capacity. The ruling, delivered by Justice C. Pratheep Kumar in Malu K. v. State of Kerala , serves as a stern reminder of the procedural safeguards required before initiating criminal litigation against a legal professional performing statutory duties.

Case Background

The dispute originated from allegations against the petitioner, a practicing lawyer and notary public, concerning a "fabricated consent letter" purportedly executed by a defacto complainant. It was alleged that the applicant assisted other accused persons (Accused 1 and 2) in drafting this document, which was subsequently used to obtain a license for a commercial venture (a cool bar and bakery) from the Kozhikode Corporation. Criminal proceedings were initiated under Sections 465 , 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).

The core legal question before the Court was whether a criminal prosecution launched against a notary public without compliance with the specific procedural mandate of Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act, 1952, could be sustained.

The Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued that as a notary public, any prosecution initiated against her for discharging her official functions must adhere strictly to Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act. This section mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offense committed by a notary unless a complaint is made in writing by an officer authorized by the Central or State Government.

Conversely, the prosecution and the counsel for the third respondent opposed the petition, asserting that the gravity of the allegations—forgery and the creation of fake documents—necessitated judicial oversight regardless of the procedural requirements of the Notaries Act.

Legal Analysis: The Protection of the Notary

The Court scrutinized the immunity provided under the Notaries Act. Justice Pratheep Kumar highlighted that the legislature intentionally provided this protection to enable notaries to perform their functions—verifying, certifying, or attesting instruments—without the constant threat of frivolous criminal litigation regarding the underlying genuineness of documents.

The High Court placed significant reliance on the precedent set in Jolsna E.P. v. State of Kerala (2020) , which established that the requirement for an authorized complaint is a "sine qua non" (an essential condition) for taking cognizance of an offense against a notary public.

Key Observations

The Court underscored the rationale behind these statutory safeguards:

> "There would not be any room for doubt to conclude that bar provided under S.13(1) is mandatory and no Court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary public in exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Central Government or a State Government by a general or special order in that behalf."

Furthermore, the Court noted:

> "If no such protection is granted to a notary it will be difficult for them to perform their acts as contemplated to be done as a notary."

The Verdict

Finding that the prosecution failed to adhere to the mandatory authorization requirement, the High Court allowed the Crl. M.C. The proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 222 of 2022, currently pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam, were formally set aside.

This decision clarifies that procedural non-compliance in the initiation of criminal cases against statutory professionals can prove fatal to the prosecution's case, limiting the Court's jurisdiction to entertain such complaints unless the statutory threshold is met.