Digamber vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 482 of the CRPC for the quashing of the charge sheet as well as the order of framing charges dated 20/6/2025 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120 of the IPC.

2] Shorn of details, the brief facts of the case are that initially, an FIR at crime number 9/2019 was lodged at the police station Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal on 30/3/2019 against 2 persons, namely, Gajendra Kumar Jain and Arun Singh Thakur, alleging sale of various plots situated at Maa Kshipra Colony, Indore, Tehsil-Sanwer, District Indore despite the fact that the said plots were already mortgaged with the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the FIR was lodged at Crime No.9/2019 under Section 420 and 120 B of IPC. However, during investigations, 2 other persons, namely, Girish Jain s/o. Gajendra Kumar Jain, and the present petitioner Digambar Bhujang Pujari, were also arrayed as accused persons. The petitioner Digambar Pujari happens to be a notary and against him it is alleged that he, along with the co-accused Girish Jain, notarised various affidavits by forging the signatures of the executants.

3] At the time of framing of charges, an application under Section 227 of CRPC was filed by the petitioner, on the ground that since he is a notary and the allegations levelled against him are in respect of his work as a notary, he can only be prosecuted as provided under Section 13 of the Notaries Act 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act of 1952), which provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under this Act save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the central government or a state government by general or special order in this behalf. However, the aforesaid contention raised by the petitioner has been dispelled by the learned judge of the trial court and the charges have been framed as aforesaid, and being aggrieved of the same, the present petition has been filed.

4] Shri Arvind Gokhale, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the learned judge of the trial court has erred in not considering the mandatory aspect of Section 13 of the Act of 1952 and has framed the charges in a mechanical manner without considering the fact that even the cognizance cannot be taken without proper compliance of Section 13 of the Notaries Act.

5] Counsel for State on the other hand has opposed and has submitted that the learned judge of the trial court has clearly held that such intricacies of the matter cannot be dealt with at this stage of framing of charges, and thus it is submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7] To appreciate the arguments as advanced by Shri Gokhale, it would be necessary to first refer to Section 13 of the Act of 1952, which reads as under:

8] A perusal of the same would reveal that when it comes to an offence committed by a notary, in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Notaries Act, cognizance can only be taken by a magistrate when a complaint in writing is made by the authorised officer as prescribed by the central government or the state government. However, when we test the facts of the case on the anvil of the aforesaid mandatory provision, it is found that the FIR was lodged against 2 persons only, namely Gajendra Kumar Jain and Arun Singh Thakur in the police station economic offences wing Bhopal, whereas the charge-sheet has been filed against 4 persons, and thus 2 other persons, namely Girish Jain s/o of Gajendra Kumar Jain and the present petitioner Digambar Pujari, have also been added as the accused persons. A close scrutiny of the entire charge sheet would also reveal that there is no reference of the applicability of Section 13 of the Act of 1952, and there is also no reference also that who is the person authorised in this regard to file a complaint against the petitioner who is a notary, and apparently, no such document is available in the entire charge sheet purported to be a complaint as provided under Section 13 of Act of 1952.

9] This court is of the considered opinion that merely because a notary has also been arraigned as an accused and his name has also been mentioned in the charge sheet, would absolve the prosecuting agency from complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1952. It is also found that the learned judge of the trial court has held that the objection regarding the applicability of Section 13 of the Act of 1952 cannot be decided at this preliminary juncture, which, in the considered opinion of this court is not the proper approach as the applicability of Section 13 of the Act of 1952 has to be dealt with at the time of taking cognizance only, and it cannot be decided after the evidence is led by the parties.

10] In view of the same, this court has no hesitation to hold that the learned judge of the trial court has erred in framing the charges as aforesaid against the petitioner in the absence of proper compliance of Section 13 of the Act of 1952 by the prosecution.

11] Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and the order of framing of charges dated 20/6/2025 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) District Indore is also hereby set aside, consequently, the charge sheet/FIR at crime No.9/2019 registered at police station -Economic Offence Wing, Indore under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC so far as it relates to the present petitioner/Digambar Bhujang Pujari are also hereby quashed.

12] The MCRC stands allowed and disposed of.