RAMPHAL BIRSINGH POONIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Dave for the applicant learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent - State. Though served, none appears for respondent no.2 - original complainant.

(2.) By way of present petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks following reliefs :-

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Dave for the applicant referring to the order dtd. 9/9/2015 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.12421 of 2015 submits that on settlement with original complainant, FIR qua other accused who are branded as main accused in the FIR has been quashed. He would submit that present petitioner who is arraigned as accused is advocate and notary public. It is alleged that in capacity of advocate and notary public, he has extended help to the main accused in forging documents as well as in committing offence of criminal breach of trust or forgery. However, in view of Sec. 13 of the Notary Act, the petitioner being notary public is protected. No cognizance can be taken against notary public in absence of complaint defined in Sec. 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. Such complaint is to be filed by the authorized officer of Central or State Government. In other words, it is stated that first informant has no right to file complaint against notary public and if it is filed it is in teeth of Sec. 13 of the Notary Act. Upon such submissions, learned advocate for the applicant submits to allow this petition.