Madras High Court
Ramdoss vs State Rep. By on 14 October, 2015
Author: R.Mala
Bench: R.Mala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.10.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10632 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2012 Ramdoss ... Petitioner -Vs- State rep. By 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai. 2.N.Gopal .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. For Petitioners : Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan, G.A. (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.M.Solaisamy for R2 :O R D E R
The petitioner has come forward with this application stating that he was arrayed as A4 in C.C.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case in crime No.6 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and A1 are own brothers and their father dies intestate, whereas, A1 alleged to be crated a Will, in which, the petitioner has attested as Notary Public and hence, he was implicated as A4.
3.He would further submit that as per the provision of Section 13 of Notaries Act, 1952, 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. To substantiate the same, he relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in V.Ranga Ramu Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1999 Cri.L.J.561 and prayed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
4.Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that since the Will was notirised by the petitioner, he was implicated as accused and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the application.
5.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that already investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and prayed for the dismissal of the application.
6.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7.Originally, the property is owned by the father of the defacto complainant and the first accused. Their father died on 07.08.2004 leaving behind seven legal heirs. According to the prosecution, the first accused has conspired and in order to grab the property, he created forged Will. The petitioner has notarised the Will. As per Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions.
8.I have considered the decision of the Karnataka High Court in V.Ranga Ramu Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1999 Cri.L.J.561, wherein, the Karnataka High Court has held in paragraph Nos.5 as follows:
?5.It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is a Notary appointed under the Act, and he has been working as a Notary. Even in the complaint also, it is specifically mentioned that the charge-sheet also mentions that the petitioner had signed the affidavit as notary public. Under those circumstances, he is governed by S.13 of the Act. With this background, it is necessary to refer to S.13 of the Act which reads:
?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 office authorised by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf.
No Magistrate other than a presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act.?
In this case admittedly, the petitioner is a Notary appointed under the Act. The allegations also undisputedly are in the exercise or purported exercise of the offences under the Act but there is no written complaint by any officer who is authorised by the Central Government or State Government either by general or special order, empowering to file the complaint. The complaint came to be filed by the police officer. There is nothing to indicate that he was either by general or special order authorised by the Central or State Government to file such complaint. It may also be mentioned here that as can be seen from the FIR, the case was registered against the other accused persons alleging that the signature and seal of the petitioner were forged by the other accused persons but while filing the charge-sheet only, the name of the petitioner was included. From this it is apparently clear that the complaint was filed against this petitioner by an unauthorised person and in contravention of S.13 of the Act.?
9.Considering the above decision along with Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, I am of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai is hereby quashed against the petitioner alone.
TO
1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..