Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 923 (MP)

Amrat Lal v. State of M. P.

2006-07-28

B.M.GUPTA

body2006
ORDER 1. Petitioner by Shri Himanshu Kaushal, Advocate. Respondent/State by Shri C.S. Dixit, PP. The instant petition is for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in original Criminal Case No. 192/2002 pending in the Court of JMFC, Pichchore, District Shivpuri, under which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on a police report against the petitioner on the ground that he attested by Will of such a person who was admitted in the hospital in serious condition and could not be presumed to be present before him for attestation. 2. Shri Kaushal has submitted that as per the duties assigned to the notary public. He was to execute a document after verification from the executant on identification by two witnesses. Accordingly, he did his work and if the right executant was not produced before the petitioner. he cannot be held responsible. 3. Shri Dixit has submitted that on a report lodged by one Malkhan, against 5 accused including petitioner Crime No. 176/2000 for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Pichhore; on the allegation that the disputed Will was attested by the petitioner as notary when the executant of theWill, was ailing and admitted in Jhansi Hospital. He was suffering from the consequences of brain haemorrhage. As per the report as well as of the statement of Malkhan who lodged the report petitioner was knowing the executant, as the petitioner himself disclosed this fact at the time of execution. No other evidence is on record with regard to this fact that the petitioner was personally knowing the executant. He has further submitted that Dr. Manoj who is related to the hospital concerned has also stated that the executant Parma since deceased was admitted in the hospital at Jhansi at the relevant time and was not in a position to go to Pichhore for the execution of the Will. 4. Shri Dixit fairly concedes that apart from this evidence nothing is there against the petitioner on the record. The only evidence shown by Shri Dixit against the petitioner is the statement of complainant Malkhan. He does not state from his own knowledge that the executant/deceased was known to the petitioner. 4. Shri Dixit fairly concedes that apart from this evidence nothing is there against the petitioner on the record. The only evidence shown by Shri Dixit against the petitioner is the statement of complainant Malkhan. He does not state from his own knowledge that the executant/deceased was known to the petitioner. He gave this statement on the ground that it was spoken by the petitioner himself before him. This appears no sufficient ground to believe that the executant was known to the petitioner because the knowledge of Malkhan is not his personal knowledge. 5. It has been rightly argued by Shri Kaushal that if a third person comes before the notary with two witnesses, who can identify him and on that basis, he attests document, he cannot be held responsible. 6. In view of this there appears an abuse of the process of the Court, which can be set right by this Court under its inherent powers. Consequently, petition is allowed. The FIR on which the proceedings initiated of Criminal Case No. 192/2002 in the Court of JMFC, Pichhore including the proceeding in the case, is quashed, so far as they relates to the petitioner.