Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, heard an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 420 of 2017 registered at Bhokardan Police Station, Jalna, for offences under Sections 420, 120B, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant, Ashok Yeshwantrao Shinde, an advocate working as a Notary Public, and his son were accused of cheating the informant, Babasaheb Pagare, by promising to sell two plots of land. They produced notarized transfer documents showing the plots belonging to Raju Bhagaji Karhale and Ankush Bajirao Kolhe. The informant paid Rs. 20,000 as advance. Upon inquiry, the informant discovered that both Raju Karhale and Ankush Kolhe had died years before the date of the documents, and the real owners were different deceased persons. The investigation revealed that the stamp papers were purchased by persons sent by the applicant, and bogus documents were created in the names of deceased persons. The applicant argued that the police could not register the crime against him as a notary public without a complaint under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence committed by a notary in the exercise of his functions save upon complaint by an authorized officer. He relied on several High Court decisions. The High Court distinguished those cases as dealing with mistakes in identification by notaries, whereas here the applicant was directly involved in fabricating documents and making false promises. The court held that the acts did not relate to the functioning as a notary public but constituted independent offences of cheating and forgery. It found a prima facie case and observed that thorough investigation was necessary to uncover more such incidents. The application was rejected, and the FIR was not quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Cheating and Forgery - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 - The applicant, a notary public and advocate, was accused of cheating by falsely representing the availability of plots for sale and providing bogus notarized agreements executed in the names of deceased persons, inducing the informant to pay Rs. 20,000 - The court held that the acts were not done in the capacity of a notary public but as a perpetrator of fraud, therefore the protection under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 was not available - FIR could not be quashed as prima facie case was made out and investigation was required (Paras 9-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the registration and investigation of the FIR for offences under Sections 420, 120B, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC against a notary public is barred under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, and consequently whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Decision
Application rejected; FIR not quashed; investigation to continue.
Law Points
- Protection under Section 13 of Notaries Act not attracted for fraudulent acts committed outside notarial functions
- Prima facie case of cheating and forgery made out justifies refusal to quash FIR under Section 482 CrPC
- Distinction between notarial lapses and fabricated documents used for cheating
