K RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. RAJESH KATARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the 2nd accused in case pending in C.C.No.10106 of 2007 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai seeks to quash proceedings as against him.

(2.) C.C.No.10106 of 2007 is a complaint case wherein the respondent/complainant informs that on certain misrepresentations made to him, he entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the 1st accused and the other directors of a company by name M/s.Excel Logistics (P) Ltd. on 29.09.2000. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, the respondent/ complainant and his associates were to bring an amount equal to the projected net worth of the company i.e., Rs.2.5 Crores. Pursuant thereto, the respondent/complainant had paid a sum of Rs.20.68 lakhs into the company on such date and the balance would be paid after he was allowed by the 1st accused and his associates to apply for due diligence over the accounts and other assets of the company to ascertain the veracity of the projected net worth of Rs.2.5 Crores. The 1st accused and associates delayed the production of accounts and details of assets and simultaneously put pressure on the complainant to part with moneys at regular intervals citing administrative and business exigencies. A sum of Rs.1.12 Crores was paid by the respondent/ complainant and on being questioned, the 1st accused and 3rd accused pacified the respondent/complainant and informed that the same could be treated as a loan on mortgage and mortgaged property of the 1st accused viz., an estate at Wyanad, Kerala by deposit of title deeds on 27.01.2001 through his power of attorney viz., the 3rd accused. The accused 1 and 3 made a representation to the respondent/complainant that the estate was worth Rs.3 crores. When the amounts due to the respondent/complainant became Rs.1.47 Crores on further advances made by him, another letter of deposit of title deeds was caused to be executed by the 1st accused on 27.02.2001. As the moneys were not forthcoming from the 1st accused, the respondent/complainant towards going about the legal process, ascertained and found that as against the representation of the mortgaged property being worth Rs.3 Crores, the same was worth only Rs.70 lakhs. Hence, he preferred a complaint before the Central Crime Branch, Chennai registered as Crime No.630/2001.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner besides canvassing the fact that the petitioner has attested the deed of revocation of Power of Attorney dated 28.09.2000 in his professional capacity, submitted that he had done so since the person who executed the document before him had been duly identified by two witnesses and in such circumstance, no wrong doing could be attributed to him. It might well be a case where on impersonation he had led to believe that the person who executed the document in his presence was the 1st accused. THE learned counsel places reliance on Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 to submit that the act complained of against the petitioner necessarily was one which was in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions as notary and as such the complaint could be filed in respect of such action only in writing made by a officer authorised by a Central Government or State Government by general or specific order in such behalf. Section 13 of the Notaries Act reads as follows: