The Himachal Pradesh High Court interprets Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 to reaffirm that no court can take cognizance of alleged offences by a Notary acting in official capacity unless a written complaint is made by an authorized government officer. This judgment upholds the legislative bar, preserving Notaries’ statutory protection, and serves as binding authority within Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.R/99/2025 of MAHESH CHAND SHARMA Vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | HPHC010072852025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench — HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law / Procedural Law / Notaries Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether a criminal court can take cognizance of an alleged offence committed by a Notary in official capacity, without a complaint from an authorized government officer under Section 13 of the Notaries Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 creates a clear bar: unless a written complaint by an officer authorized by the Central or State Government is made, a magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences allegedly committed by a Notary in official capacity. Therefore, framing of charges against a Notary Public, in the absence of such complaint, is contrary to law. The statutory safeguard is intended to protect Notaries acting within their authorized functions. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Express statutory bar under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, a Notary Public, was implicated in a case involving alleged forgery and fraudulent transfer of vehicles, based on attestation of affidavits. The FIR named other accused in substance, and the sole role ascribed to the petitioner was attestation of affidavits in official capacity. Charges were framed against the petitioner despite the absence of a complaint by a government-authorized officer. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Directly applies the mandate of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that courts cannot take cognizance of alleged criminal offences by Notaries in the exercise of their official functions unless there is a complaint in writing by an officer authorized by the Central or State Government.
- The statutory bar under Section 13 of the Notaries Act is mandatory, not discretionary.
- Lawyers representing Notaries should strongly assert Section 13 as a preliminary jurisdictional bar in criminal proceedings arising from official notarial acts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analyzed the attestation duties of a Notary Public and the allegations against the petitioner.
- It examined Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which expressly prohibits any court from taking cognizance of offences by a Notary in official capacity except upon a complaint in writing made by a duly authorized government officer.
- The Court found that the allegations against the petitioner arose solely in relation to the attestation of affidavits, an act carried out in his capacity as Notary Public.
- Since no such authorized complaint existed in this case, the trial court’s cognizance and framing of charges constituted a legal error.
- The statutory bar under Section 13 must be strictly applied and operates to protect Notaries from criminal process absent the procedural safeguard.
- Consequently, the Court quashed the order framing charges and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner—noting the legislative intent to prevent unwarranted prosecution of Notaries acting officially.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to frame charges as no complaint had been filed by an authorized government officer, a mandatory requirement under Section 13 of the Notaries Act.
- Emphasized that no direct allegations were made against the petitioner; his actions were limited to attestation in his official capacity as a Notary Public.
Respondent (State)
- Supported the order framing charges, arguing that as a Notary Public, the petitioner was under a legal obligation to verify identity, ensure understanding, and administer oaths before attestation.
- Contended that the petitioner failed to discharge these statutory responsibilities properly.
Factual Background
The dispute arose after the complainant alleged that forged documents had resulted in the fraudulent transfer of her truck. The petitioner, a Notary Public, attested relevant affidavits for the parties involved. The FIR was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Following investigation, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused solely based on his notarial attestation. The trial court framed charges against him, although the FIR and subsequent proceedings featured no complaint by any government-authorized officer as specified under the Notaries Act.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952: The Court focused on the statutory language creating a bar to cognizance of offences by Notaries “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…”.
- No constitutional provision or other statutes were interpreted.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines were set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision strictly affirms and applies the statutory mandate of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, following existing law.