JUDGMENT 1. BY this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash chargesheet No. 135 of 2005 dated 23rd July, 2005 qua the present petitioner. 2. THE facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No. 2 herein had fled the First Information Report with the rander Police Station, Surat being C. R. No. 1-135 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the F. I. R. are to the effect that the complainant is the owner of an agricultural land bearing Block No. 981 of revenue Survey No. 952 of village Variyav which is running in the name of Dahyabhai dwarkadas Patel, the father of the complainant, in the revenue record. According to the complainant, his father had expired on 2nd March, 1999. However, necessary mutation entry has not been effected in the revenue record. It is the case of the complainant that on 16th February, 2005, a person came to his house and enquired whether the land owned by him was to be sold. The said person showed him a copy of the general power of attorney allegedly executed by the complainant's father wherein the name of the complainant's father was stated to be dahyabhai Durlabhbhai Patel instead of dahyabhai Dwarkadas Patel. The said power of attorney was executed in favour of one Mohanbhai Govindbhai Gajera. In the said document, the name of the person who had identified the executor is Bharatbhai vallabhbhai Patel and the name of the witness is Hasanbhai Kasambhai Multani. The advocate who identified those persons is stated to be one Mr. Narendra Tiwari and the said document is stated to have been notarized by the present petitioner. It is alleged in the F. I. R. that by making a forged document; the accused attempted to sell the agricultural land belonging to the complainant and thereby committed the alleged offence. Pursuant to the filling of the aforesaid F. I. R., investigation was carried out which culminated into filing of the impugned chargesheet dated 23th July, 2005. It is alleged in the F. I. R. that by making a forged document; the accused attempted to sell the agricultural land belonging to the complainant and thereby committed the alleged offence. Pursuant to the filling of the aforesaid F. I. R., investigation was carried out which culminated into filing of the impugned chargesheet dated 23th July, 2005. It appears that subsequently the learned judicial Magistrate First Class, surat has taken cognizance on the basis of the aforesaid chargesheet and the case has been registered as Criminal Case No. 1925 of 2005. 3. MR. Asim Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the investigation papers do not make out any criminal case against the present petitioner. It is not stated in the F. I. R. or the statement of witnesses that the so-called general power of attorney was defective in any manner so as to infer the involvement of the present petitioner. It was submitted that two persons including the advocate Mr. Narendra Tiwari had identified the witnesses and the executor. Once the legal requirement for notarizing the document is fulfilled, the petitioner is bound to notarize the document, Merely notarizing the document that was subsequently found to be a forged document does not ipso facto entitle the investigating Officer to implicate the notary. 4. THE main plank of the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner was that in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, the court cannot take cognizance of any offence committed by a Notary in exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the said Act, unless a complaint in writing has been made by an officer authorised by the Central Government or a State government by general or special order in this behalf. It was accordingly submitted that in view of the prohibition condition in section 13 of the Act, the learned judicial magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaint qua the present petitioner unless the same was made in writing as envisaged under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. It was submitted that in view of the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, the chargesheet itself is required to be quashed. Alternatively, it was submitted that in any case, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence qua the present petitioner. It was submitted that in view of the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, the chargesheet itself is required to be quashed. Alternatively, it was submitted that in any case, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence qua the present petitioner. Hence, to the extent cognizance is taken, the same is required to be quashed. 5. ON the other hand, Ms. Trusha Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner being a Notary is required to ascertain the identity of the person concerned before authenticating the document; that it is not the function of the notary to authenticate a forged document. It was submitted that in any case, no case is made out for quashing out the chargesheet. 6. HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary to enter into merits of the allegations made in the chargesheet or in the F. I. R. as the same could have bearing on the final outcome of the proceedings emanating from the F. I. R. However, examining the main contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner namely, that in view of the provisions of section 13 of the Act, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the complaint except as provided under the said provision, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act which reads as under : "13. Cognizance of offence.- (1) 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. (2) No Magistrate other- than a presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act. " A plain reading of Section 13 makes it clear that a complaint against a notary in exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Act has to be made in writing by an officer authorised by the central Government or the concerned State government by general or special order in this behalf. " A plain reading of Section 13 makes it clear that a complaint against a notary in exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Act has to be made in writing by an officer authorised by the central Government or the concerned State government by general or special order in this behalf. Unless a complaint is made in the manner prescribed, no Court is empowered to take cognizance of the offence. This view finds support from the objects and reasons behind the said provision, which reads thus : "the Committee consider that protection should be given to notaries in respect of cognizance of offences. They think that protection should be given only to notaries who commit an offence acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their functions under this Act. This clause has been inserted with this object." From the objects and reasons, it is apparent that even if an offence is committed by a notary while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his functions under the Act a complaint can be lodged only as provided under Section 13 of the Act. Thus any offence committed by a notary acting or purporting to act in discharge of his functions under the Act would fall within the ambit of the Section and a Court can take cognizance of such offence only if the complaint is made in the manner laid down in the Section, The Supreme Court in the case of r. P. KAPUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB [air 1960 SC Page 866] has laid down certain categories of cases wherein inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings can and should be exercised. One of the said categories is where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may for instance, furnish cases under this category. 7. THE aforesaid decision of the supreme Court would be directly applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as there is a legal bar against taking cognizance of an offence against a notary unless the requirements of Section 13 of the act are satisfied. Absence of the requisite sanction may for instance, furnish cases under this category. 7. THE aforesaid decision of the supreme Court would be directly applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as there is a legal bar against taking cognizance of an offence against a notary unless the requirements of Section 13 of the act are satisfied. It is an undisputed position that no complaint as envisaged under Section 13 of the Act has been made against the petitioner in the circumstances, this is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings insofar as cognizance has been taken by the learned judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. 8. IN view of the above discussion, the petition partly succeeds and is allowed to that extent. It is held that the learned judicial Magistrate First Class, Surest could not have taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner unless a complaint was made in writing by an officer authorised by the Central Government or the concerned State Government by general or special order in that behalf. Criminal case No. 1925 of 2005 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, surat is quashed only qua the present petitioner, Ashokbhai Rameshchandra ghantivala. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, it is clarified that quashing of the criminal case qua the petitioner shall not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate steps under Section 13 of the Act, if they so deem fit. Rule is made absolute.