Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amar Singh Mahor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22042
1 MCRC-52547-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 10 th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52547 of 2024
AMAR SINGH MAHOR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prem Singh Bhadoriya & Shri Atul Gupta- Advocates for applicant.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
Case-diary is available.
2. This first application, under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023 (Section 438 of Cr.P.C), has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.
3 . Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.736/2024 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
4. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that applicant is a notary aged about 70 years. Allegations are that he had notarized an agreement to sell which according to complainant is a forged document. It is the case of applicant that if deponent appears before him who is duly identified by some body else and if the affidavit is signed in presence of notary with signatures in the notary register, then a notary cannot be made liable if the agreement was found to be forged one. It is submitted that applicant is not a stamp vendor. He has merely notarized an agreement to sell, therefore, he has no role to play to make himself liable under criminal law.
5 . Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted that an agreement to sell is required to be registered and it cannot be Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/12/2024 1:46:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22042 2 MCRC-52547-2024 notarized, therefore, act of applicant in notarizing agreement to sell is beyond his jurisdiction. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations that forged agreement to sell was executed in connivance with applicant. By referring to seizure memo of agreement to sell, it is mentioned that stamps were also sold by applicant. However, it is fairly conceded that name of stamp vendor is not clear from reverse side of agreement.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. An agreement to sell is required to be registered and it cannot be notarized but still notaries are notarizing agreement to sell. Accordingly, counsel for applicant was directed to explain the jurisdiction of notary to notarize an agreement to sell. It was fairly conceded by Shri Bhadoriya as well as by Shri Gupta that agreement to sell cannot be notarized and it has to be a registered one. However, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that merely because applicant by travelling beyond his jurisdiction had notarized an agreement to sell then that by itself would not make him liable for criminal action. However, the said act of notary cannot be in accordance with notary law.
8. Whenever a deponent appears before notary along with unsigned affidavit then notary is required to verify the contents of the said document from the deponent and if contents are admitted to be correct then deponent has to sign the affidavit in presence of notary as well as has to sign the register of notary. Thus, if signatures of deponent on the affidavit as well as register of notary are found to be made by the same person and if deponent was duly identified by somebody else then in a given case the notary may not be made liable for executing the forged document.
9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and accordingly, application is allowed.
10. It is directed that in case if applicant appears before Investigating Officer on Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/12/2024 1:46:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22042 3 MCRC-52547-2024 or before 18/12/2024 and furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer, then he shall be released on anticipatory bail.
11. The Investigating Officer is directed to immediately seize the notary register of applicant and send the same along with agreement to sell to the handwriting expert. If it is found that signatures of deponent on the notary register and agreement to sell are different or the deponent was not identified by the witnesses [because affidavit contains the thumb impressions of witnesses but their names, Aadhar Number and Addresses are not mentioned in the affidavit] then this anticipatory bail order shall automatically stand cancelled and applicant shall be under obligation to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the Trial Court, as the case may be.
12. It is made clear that in case applicant fails to appear before Investigating Officer on or before 18/12/2024 or does not co-operate in seizure of relevant notary register then this order shall automatically come to an end.
13. In the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case ofXYZ and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported in (2021) 16 SCC 179, intimation regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/12/2024 1:46:06 AM