Allowed

Ramesh Chand v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC9 May 2018CRLMP/5190/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench order quashed an FIR against a Petitioner, a Notary Public, qua himself under Section 482 CrPC, but retained the FIR against other co-accused. Liberty was granted to authorities to file a written complaint if the petitioner's guilt is established under the Notaries Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR quashed only qua the petitioner; liberty granted to investigate and file a complaint under Section 13 of the Notaries Act if offence is made out.

Ramesh Chand Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 5190/2017

¶3

Ramesh Chand S/o Prahlad B/c Kushwah, Notary Public, Advocate, R/o Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Kota.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶7

Girish Pandit S/o Sh. Jaiwant Rav B/c Brahmin, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Sarola Kalan House Shripura, Kota, Raj.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. AK Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara Mr. Aladeen Khan PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶11

Order

¶12

09/05/2018

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 127/2016, registered at Police Station Sarola, District Jhalawar for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is Notary Public and he in his that capacity had attested the documents.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Section 13 of Notaries Act, 1952, which reads as under:-

¶16

“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

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CRLMP-5190/2017]

¶19

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 try an offence punishable under this Act.

¶20

The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has submitted that the complainant has no grievance against the petitioner Notary Public but his only grievance is against the beneficiaries of the documents, i.e. co-accused of the petitioner. Counsel for the complainant has very fairly admitted that except to attest the document petitioner notary has not played any other role in the occurrence.

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and considering the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed only qua the petitioner i.e. Notary Public. However, the said FIR shall remain in vogue qua other co-accused of the petitioner.

¶22

Further liberty is granted to the investigating officer that in case during the investigation commission of offence on the part of the petitioner is made out, he shall approach the appropriate Government for filing complaint in writing against the petitioner as per terms of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952.

¶23

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶24

Mak/-

Ramesh Chand v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pacific Academy Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Anjana Vs Sandeep Kumar

Smt Anjana Vs Sandeep Kumar

Smt Ritu Vs Suraj

Charanjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajesh Vs Sandeep and Ors.