ISHWAR POOJARY Vs. POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 2nd respondent having lodged a private complaint against the petitioner and others in PCR No.28/2007, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, D.K., Mangaluru, made a reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the first respondent for investigation and report. Case in crime No.80/2007 was registered on 19.06.2007. Investigation was undertaken and final report/charge sheet vide Annexure -C was submitted. The petitioner having been shown as accused No.3, cognizance of the offences allegedly committed and punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 423, 471 r/w 149 IPC was taken and process having been issued, the petitioner, an Advocate and a Notary Public, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings.

(2.) SRI S.R. Ravi Prakash, learned advocate contended that the impugned action of the first respondent, keeping in view the factual scenario, as has been alleged in PCR No.28/2007 and the final report/charge sheet against the petitioner/Notary Public, being contrary to the decisions in V. Ranga Ramu vs. State of Karnataka, 1999 CrLJ 561 and Smt. Ratna vs. State of Karnataka and Another, 2014 3 Crimes(Kar) 535, is liable to be quashed. He submitted that in view of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act'), learned Magistrate has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner in exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Act. He further submitted that the complaint having not been filed by an Officer authorized by the Central Government or State Government by general or special order made in that behalf, the impugned action of the first respondent being illegal, interference is called for.

(3.) SRI B. Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP, having noticed the illegality on the part of the first respondent, submitted that liberty may be reserved to the authorized officer in terms of Section 13 of the Act, to file complaint against the petitioner in respect of the offences alleged against him by respondent No.2. In PCR No.28/2007 vide Annexure -A, the allegation made against the petitioner, read thus: