JUDGMENT : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner accused Gajendra Kumar Upadhyay preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the impugned order dated 21.01.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 16, Jaipur Metropolitan in Cr. Revision Petition No. 20/2013 (Gajendra Kumar Upadhyaya v. State of Rajasthan) whereby learned Revisional Court while dismissing the revision petition affirmed the order dated 22.02.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 17, Jaipur Metro in Criminal Case No. 415/2011 by which learned Magistrate ordered to frame charge against the present petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the FIR under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was registered in Police Station Banipark, Jaipur and consequent to that charge-sheet was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC after investigation against the present accused and other co-accused persons. 3. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments on charge vider order dated 22.02.2013 ordered to frame charge against the present petitioner and other co-accused for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. That order was challenged before the Revisional Court and Revisional Court vide impugned judgment dated 21.01.2014 dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the order of charge passed by learned Trial Court which is assailed in this misc. petition. 4. Shri S.S. Surana, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner is advocate and Notary Public and the allegations leveled against him are in regard to functioning as Notary Public as such the protection is provided to Notary Public under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 and as per Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, no court can take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Act save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf. He submits that without any complaint made by authorized officer, charge-sheet was filed, therefore, Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance so as to frame charge. Without considering this provision learned Revisional Court wrongly dismissed the revision petition and the Trial Court also wrongly framed charges and took cognizance against the petitioner, therefore, same may be quashed. 5. He submits that without any complaint made by authorized officer, charge-sheet was filed, therefore, Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance so as to frame charge. Without considering this provision learned Revisional Court wrongly dismissed the revision petition and the Trial Court also wrongly framed charges and took cognizance against the petitioner, therefore, same may be quashed. 5. Learned counsel relied on V. Ranga Ramu v. State of Kranataka reported in 1999 Crl. L. J. 561 and Sarwan Kumar Ojha v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2012(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1275. 6. Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali fairly conceded that protection under Section 13 is available to Notary Public which has not been considered by the Trial Court as well as Revisional Court. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Sr. counsel Shri S.S. Surana and learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali. It is an undisputed fact that petitioner is a notary public appointed under the Act, 1952 and he was working as a Notary. Even in the impugned order and material available on record, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner had signed the agreement as a Notary Public. Under these circumstances, he is governed by Section 13 of the Act of 1952. 8. With this background, it is necessary to refer to Section 13 of the Act of 1952 which reads as under :- “No court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of this functions under this Act save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf. No Magistrate other than a presidency magistrate or a magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act.” 9. In this case admittedly, the petitioner is a notary as appointed under the Act of 1952. The allegations also undisputed are in the exercise or purported exercise of under the Act but there is no written complaint by any officer who is authorized by the Central Government or State Government either by general or special order, empowering to file a complaint. Instead of complaint the FIR was filed by a private person. There is nothing to indicate that there was either by general or special order authorized by the Central or State Government to file such FIR or complaint. Instead of complaint the FIR was filed by a private person. There is nothing to indicate that there was either by general or special order authorized by the Central or State Government to file such FIR or complaint. It may also be mentioned here that as can be seen from the FIR, the FIR was registered against the other co-accused persons also alleging that they made forgery and cheating and the name of petitioner was implicated since he attested the document being a Notary Public discharging his duty as a Notary Public. 10. From this it is apparently clear that complain/FIR was filed against the present petitioner by an unauthorised person and in Contravention of Section 13 of the Act of 1952. Learned Trial Court as well as Revisional Court failed to consider this provision and without considering it took cognizance against the present petitioner and framed charge which is not sustainable and this misc. petition deserves to be allowed which is hereby allowed and the impugned orders/judgments of Revisional Court as well as Trial Court are quashed and set aside and petitioner is discharged for aforesaid offence. However, the proceedings against other accused persons shall continue without affecting from this order. Petitioner discharged - Proceedings to continue against other accused.