V RANGA RAMU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed under S. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the order passed by the learned I ACCM, Bangalore City, taking cognizance of the offences and directing issue of process to this petitioner along with other accused persons. The petitioner is one of the accused persons in all these cases. Notice of these petitions was served on the learned S. P. P.

(2.) HEARD.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an advocate and notary public and the Court has committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence and directing issue of process to this petitioner. He also further submitted that the FIR does not disclose any offence said to have been committed by this petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the Magistrate ought not to have issued summons to this petitioner. In support of his argument, he also drew my attention to S. 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act' ). The learned S. P. P. fairly and rightly submitted that these petitions will have to be allowed in favour of the petitioner as the Courts could not have taken cognizance of the offence as contemplated under S. 13 of the Act.