Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramayan Prasad Kacher vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2022
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
Cr.R. No.1296/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1296 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
RAMAYAN PRASAD KACHER S/O LATE SOBHANATH
KACHER, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ADVOCATE WARD NO. 15 NAGAR PALIKA, DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SOURABH SUNDER - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
KOTWALI SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PANKAJ GUPTA S/O K.P. GUPTA VILLAGE BUDWA ,
TEHSIL SOHAGPUR, P.S. SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SANJEEV SINGH - PANEL LAWYER FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE AND SHRI ADITYA NARAYAN GUPTA -
ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT)
....RESPONDENTS
Cr.R. No.1296/2020
2
Reserved on : 24.08.2022
Pronounced on : 12.12.2022
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced
the following :
ORDER
Applicant, who is an Advocate and Notary at the relevant time has filed this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2020, passed in S.T. No.284/2019.
2. The facts which resulted in filing of the present criminal revision are that a FIR was registered on 23.07.2016 on the basis of a complaint by one Hemant Kumar Sharma against the present applicant and one other person.
3. The sole allegation against the applicant was that the applicant being a notary, wrongly attested an affidavit dated 03.04.2012. As per the FIR the signature of complainant Pankaj Kumar Gupta was not matching and it has been said that the same has not been done by the complainant. It was further alleged that Cr.R. No.1296/2020 3 on the basis of the said affidavit so notarized by the present applicant, the procedure for issuance of no objection certificate was issued by the RTO in the name of one Devendra Yadav. On the basis of said FIR and investigation report dated 20.10.2019, offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 371 and 34 of the IPC were made out against the present applicant. The trial Court after taking the cognizance, vide order dated 05.03.2020 framed charge under Sections 420, 467, 468, 371 and 34 of the I.P.C. The applicant thereafter preferred an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge on the ground that applicant being a notary, no cognizance of an offence can be taken by any Court under this act save upon the complaint in writing made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or the State Government by general or special order in this behalf. The same was rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant referring to Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 and Rule 13 of the Notary Rules, 1956 has argued that any act done by the notary in the purported exercise of his functions under this Act is protected by the said section and unless the complaint in writing is made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or the State Government by any general or special order, the court cannot take cognizance of the same. It is further argued that as per Rule 13, any enquiry into Cr.R. No.1296/2020 4 the misconduct of a Notary can be initiated either suo motu or by the appropriate government or on a complaint received in form 13. It is urged that the allegation so made against the present applicant may be a professional misconduct but it could not be an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 371 and 34 of the I.P.C. Under the circumstances, the learned Court below has committed an illegality in taking cognizance of the matter. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he is not required to disclose that he filed a petition under Section 482, as these two are independent proceedings and the petition under Section 482 was filed against registration of FIR and the same was dismissed on the ground that investigation is still pending. Learned counsel has placed reliance on (2015) 1 SCC 527 Vinita S. Rao Vs. Essen Corporate Services Private Limited and another, (2015) 8 SCC 774 Chandra Babu alias Moses Vs. State through Inspector of Police and others and (1997) 4 SCC 241 Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, in support of his contentions.
5. Per contra, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent/State is that the protection of Notaries Act is available to a person only if when he is working as a notary under the Act. It is stated that the applicant was not working as Notary on the date of taking of cognizance by the court, hence the protection of Section 13 of the Notaries Act is not available and applicable to Cr.R. No.1296/2020 5 the applicant. It is further argued that the applicant has suppressed the fact that he has filed M.Cr.C. No.36469/2018 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2019. It is further submitted that the appointment of applicant as Notary was set aside by order dated 08.05.2009 in W.P. No.10680/2008 and the State government was directed to hold a fresh selection in accordance with law. Initially, vide order dated 01.06.2009, status quo order was passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 477/2009. However, the writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 19.02.2010. This order was assailed by way of SLP (Civil) No.8933/2010, before the Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed on 04.04.2014. The Curative Petition No.777/2015 filed for reviewing the order passed in SLP was also dismissed on 16.04.2015.
6. A perusal of the documents on record show that the registration of the applicant as notary was quashed by the Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No.10680/2008 by order dated 08.05.2009. The same was challenged by way of W.A. No. 477/2009. Initially status quo order was granted on 01.06.2009, but the writ appeal came to be dismissed on 19.02.2010. SLP against the same was dismissed on 04.04.2014 and Curative Petition was again dismissed on 16.04.2015. Under the Cr.R. No.1296/2020 6 circumstances, the applicant was not registered as a Notary on the date the court below took cognizance. Hence, the protection under Section 13 was not available to the applicant. The case laws relied upon by the counsel for the applicant has no relevance to the facts of the case as the applicant was not a notary on the date of taking cognizance by the Court.
7. In view of the aforestated, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Court below. No merit in the petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Nandita Dubey) Judge 12/12/2022 gn Digitally signed by SMT. GEETHA NAIR Date: 2022.12.13 12:10:22 +05'30'