Gujarat High Court
Ramilaben Maheshbhai Thakor vs State Of Gujarat on 20 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10442/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 10442 of 2021
==========================================================
RAMILABEN MAHESHBHAI THAKOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS TRUSHA PATEL. SR. ADVOCATE with MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455)
for the petitioner
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 20/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
Though served, none appears for the respondent No.2.
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R. No.11216025210276 registered with Santej Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 405, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
2. In essence, the petitioner, who is practising advocate, has been arraigned as accused on the ground that she has notarized some documents, which purported to be forged one.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:03:53 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10442/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
3.1 That for property bearing S.no. Rancharda, Taluka: Kalol 1260 of Village: and District: Gandhinagar, complainant had given public notice on 28.06.2017 in daily newspaper.
Objections were raised to said public notice and it on further inquiry, it was learnt by applicant that on 12.07.2016 notarised agreement to sale was execute by complainant in favor of one Parmanand Amratbhai Patel. Said notarised agreement was on stamp paper of Rs. 100 bearing agreement no. to sale was applicant herein i.e. Thakor at serial no. AZ 271506. Said notarised before Notary Ramilaben 374 dated 12.07.2016 wherein other accused have also signed. It is alleged by the complainant that no such agreement to sale was signed by him and notarised, no consideration was paid in context of said document and just to create bogus litigation over property land all accused in connivance with each other created bogus notarised agreement to sale. Hence, impugned FIR is filed. thus, present petition to quash the FIR.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Ms. Patel for the petitioner referring to section 13 of the Notaried Act and also judgment delivered by this Court in case of Ashokbhai Rameshchandra Ghantivala Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2009(2) GLH 491 as well as in case of Mohammed Yusuf Kasam Kalavat Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2012 JX (Guj) 196 would submit that the Court cannot take cognizance of any offence committed by the notary purported to exercise powers under the Act on the basis of police report. She would further submit that in the present case, not only the FIR is registered, but the investigating Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:03:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10442/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined officer has also filed charge sheet against the petitioner though legal bar is operating from taking cognizance against notary for purported act done under the Notarized Act on the police report.
4.1 Upon such submission, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner urges to allow these petitions.
5. Per contra, learned APP would only point out the argument that the material collected during investigation can be used to file private complaint against the petitioner. Apart from that, he does not argue anything more.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, what could be noticed that role of the present petitioner is limited to exercise her power as notary and made endorsement in forged document and except that, there is no other allegation levelled against her, which suggests that she is not in complicity with the main accused in forging the document nor has she gained any benefits from the said forged documents.
7. Section 13 of the Notarized Act was pressed into service, which reads as under:-
"SECTION 13 : 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 officer authorised by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf.
(2) No Magistrate other than a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:03:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10442/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined try an offence punishable under this Act.
8. Plain reading of the aforesaid indicates that legal bar is operating from taking cognizance against notary for purported act done under the Notarized Act on the police report. A complaint is required to be filed u/s 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the present case, pursuant to the FIR, the investigating officer has also tendered charge sheet against the accused and therefore, he is legally barred from taking cognizance u/s 13 of the Act from the police report.
9. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ahokbhai Rameshchandra Ghantivala (supra), addressed identical issue. Relevant observations and findings are at para 8 and 9, which reads as under:-
"8. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary to enter into merits of the allegations made in the chargesheet or in the F.I.R. as the same could have bearing on the final outcome of the proceedings emanating from the F.I.R. However, examining the main contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner namely, that in view of the provisions of Sec. 13 of the Act, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the complaint except as provided under the said provision, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of Sec. 13 of the Act which reads as under :
["13. 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 officer authorised by the Central Government or a State Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:03:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10442/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined Government by general or special order in this behalf.] [(2) No Magistrate other- than a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act."] A plain reading of Sec. 13 makes it clear that a complaint against a notary in exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Act has to be made in writing by an officer authorised by the Central Government or the concerned State Government by general or special order in this behalf. Unless a complaint is made in the manner prescribed, no Court is empowered to take cognizance of the offence. This view finds support from the objects and reasons behind the said provision, which reads thus :
["The Committee consider that protection should be given to notaries in respect of cognizance of offences. They think that protection should be given only to notaries who commit an offence acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their functions under this Act. This clause has been inserted with this object."] From the objects and reasons, it is apparent that even if an offence is committed by a notary while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his functions under the Act a complaint can be lodged only as provided under Section 13 of the Act. Thus any offence committed by a notary acting or purporting to act in discharge of his functions under the Act would fall within the ambit of the Section and a Court can take cognizance of such offence only if the complaint is made in the manner laid down in the Section.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of R.P. KAPUR V/s.
STATE OF PUNJAB [AIR 1960 SC Page 866] has laid down certain categories of cases wherein inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings can and should be exercised. One of the said categories is where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may for instance, furnish cases under this Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:03:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10442/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined category."
10. Perusal of the record as well as findings of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that filing of charge sheet and registration of criminal case against the petitioner deserve to be quashed and set aside reserving liberty to the prosecution to use the material, if any, collected during the investigation of the FIR, for filing complaint, if so desired.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and impugned FIR being C.R. No.11216025210276 registered with Santej Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 405, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein are hereby quashed and set aside reserving liberty to the prosecution to use the material, if any, collected during the investigation of the FIR, for filing complaint, if so desired. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:03:53 IST 2025