Back
Accepts Notary's Apology, Orders Warning Board and Rs 2 Lakh Cost
The at Gwalior has accepted an from Raghvendra Samadhiya for illegally notarizing a marriage document, despite a clear directive from the Central Government barring notaries from executing marriage or divorce deeds. While dropping the proceedings initiated against him, the of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla imposed two conditions: Samadhiya must deposit Rs 2 lakh for the welfare of the High Court Bar Association and affix a display board at his workplace stating that of marriage documents is impermissible.
A Marriage Document That Wasn’t Meant to Be
The case originated from a
petition (W.P. No. 26269/2026) filed by Chandrapal Singh Parihar, who alleged that his wife was in illegal detention. When the corpus appeared before the court, she claimed that she had voluntarily married the petitioner and that a
had been performed at the
. The case diary, however, contained a notarized document titled
"विवाह वाद विवाह के पंजीयन बावत लिखतम"
(Document regarding registration of marriage), which had been notarized by Raghvendra Samadhiya, a
.
Taking cognizance, the court noted that notaries have no jurisdiction to act as marriage officers. It referred to an office memorandum dated issued by the , which explicitly restrains notaries from executing marriage/divorce deeds. The court issued a to Samadhiya on .
"I Will Never Repeat This Mistake"
When the notary appeared before the court on , he accepted his mistake. Through a detailed reply filed on , Samadhiya tendered an , stating that due to a misunderstanding he had notarized the document, but after reviewing the law, he was now fully aware of the limitations of his role. He gave an undertaking that he would never repeat such a mistake.
In open court, Samadhiya went further, offering to contribute Rs 2,00,000 for the welfare of lawyers and voluntarily proposing to install a display board at his place of work warning that marriage affidavits cannot be notarized by a notary. Senior Advocate , representing the notary, submitted that this was a genuine expression of remorse from the bottom of his heart.
A Measure of Mercy, With Deterrent Conditions
The court accepted the apology, drawing a philosophical distinction:
"Committing a mistake is not a sin, but repeating the same will be a sin. There should not be any hatred towards a sinner, but hatred should be for the sin."
While noting that the sincerity of the apology could only be judged by future conduct, the bench concluded that another opportunity could be given.
Accordingly, the court ordered that before resuming notary work, Samadhiya must: - Deposit Rs 2,00,000 in the court registry by Monday (), to be utilized by the for betterment of services. - Affix a display board at his workplace stating that of any marriage document is forbidden.
The court also warned that any before the deposit of cost would be treated as utter defiance of the order and result in permanent restraint from performing notary duties. The sealed register of the notary was returned after he made an endorsement about the suspension period.
A Gesture for Systemic Reform
In a notable development, Senior Advocate , who is also a member of the , volunteered to circulate a letter to all notaries reproducing the government's office memorandum, aiming to inform every notary about the limitations on their jurisdiction. The court appreciated this gesture, noting it would help protect innocent aspirants who approach notaries believing they can get a performed.
With these conditions met, the proceedings against Raghvendra Samadhiya were dropped.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"Committing a mistake is not a sin, but repeating the same will be a sin. There should not be any hatred towards a sinner, but hatred should be for the sin."
"Whether that acceptance is from the bottom of his heart or it is superficial cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings because that can be ascertained from his future conduct."
"The gesture shown by is in consonance with law and for the protection of innocent aspirants who go to the Court under the hope and belief that they will get the performed."
This case serves as a cautionary tale for notaries across the country, clarifying that they have no authority to act as marriage officers or to notarize documents that create the impression of a having been performed.
