JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. Petitioner-accused Banwari Lal Gupta preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the impugned order dated 17.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Kishangarhbas District Alwar in criminal Revision Petition No. 9/2012 whereby learned lower Revisional Court while dismissing the revision petition affirmed the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas dated 03.02.2012 by which learned trial Court ordered to frame charges for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2- complainant Suresh Kumar submitted a report before S.H.O. Police Station Khairthal District Alwar (Annexure-2) stating therein that :- lsok esa] Jheku Fkkusnkj lkgc iqfyl Fkkuk [kSjFky vyoj fo"k; % ckcr ntZ fd;s tkus izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds dze esa Jheku th] fuosnu gS fd eku flokuk esa [kljk la[;k 212] 1-10 fcLok 213-0] 15 fcLok] 214] 0-11 fcLok] 215] 1-01 fcLok] 219] 0-2 fcLok] 220] 0-3 fcLok] 221] 4-0 ch?kk] 222] 2-8 fcLok] 225] 1-3 fcLok] 225] 1050] 1-19 fcLok] 226] 1-15 fcLok] 227] 2-06 fcLok] 244] 0-16 fcLok dqy jdck 18 ch?kk 9 fcLok o xzke fuesMk esa [kljk la[;k uEcj & 173] 2-03 fcLok o [kljk la[;k ua- & 294] 3-05 fcLok dqy jdck 5 ch?kk 18 fcLok nksuksa xkaoksa dk feykdj dqy jdck 23 ch?kk 17 fcLok eSaus o esjs pkj Hkkb;ksa us jkepUnz lqHkk"k] lqjs'k] lqjsUnz o lksuw us tfj;s jftLV~h lu 1998 esa [kjhn dh Fkh] ftldk bUrdky ntZ o eUtwj gks pqdk FkkA ftlesa ls [kljk la[;k ua- 294 esa xzke fuesMk es vdsys lqjs'k ds uke ls gh [kjhn fd;k gqvk gSa gekjh mDr vkjkth esa ls /kks[kk/kM+h] diViwoZd o csbZekuksa dh fu;r ls vCnqy lrkj iq= gkth lyse [kka] tkfr eso fuoklh flokuk] bljkbZy iq= blo [kka tkfr eso] fuoklh ekStiqj rglhy y{e.kx<+ vyoj jkekuUn iq= lwjtHkku] tkfr ;kno] fuoklh & ?kkVyk] rglhy&vyoj] ftyk vyoj o uksVsjh cuokjh yky xqIrk o LvkEi os.Mj xqjcDl flag vyoj ls feydj gekjh tehu dks gM+ius dh fu;r ls ,d QthZ nLrkost bdjkjukek rS;kj fd;k rFkk nLrkost dks QthZ tkurs gq, mi;ksx esa fy;k] QthZ nLrkost ij gekjs dksbZ gLrk{kj ugha gSA bu yksxksa us gekjs QthZ gLrk{kj ij QthZ nLrkost bdjkjukek rS;kj dj dke esa fy;k gSA bl ckr dh eq>s vc tkudkjh feyus ij fjiksVZ dks vk;k gwa] eqdnek ntZ dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA bl dk;Zokgh esa fot; dqekj 'kekZ oyh dk uohl vyoj dk Hkh gkFk jgk gSA 3. On the said report FIR No. 112/2004 under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was registered at Police Station Khairthal, District Alwar and investigation commenced, after investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner accused and other co-accused Abdul Sattar, Ramanand, Israil & Gurubux Singh for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, on which learned trial Court took cognizance for the aforesaid offences. The order of cognizance was assailed by the petitioner before this Court in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1000/2006 which was dismissed vide order dated 29.02.2008 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in absence of petitioner and his counsel. Thereafter, S. B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 747/2008 was filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 29.02.2008, which was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.04.2008 but in the aforesaid order it was observed that " the petitioner is always at liberty to raise these legal questions at the time of framing of charges". Thereafter, vide order dated 03.02.2012 learned trial Court after hearing on charge, framed charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC against the petitioner-accused and co-accused which was assailed in revision petition, the revision petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.08.2012 (Annexure-7) by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Kishangarhbas. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.08.2012 petitioner-accused preferred this misc. petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a notary public, appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 and Notary Rules 1956 who attested the agreement in question in capacity of notary public. He submits that as per section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, 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 otherwise Court should not take cognizance. He submits that in the case in hand no complaint was made by the Authorised Officer of Central Government or a State Government in this regard and the alleged act is purported to the functioning of petitioner as notary. 6. Without considering this fact, learned trial Court wrongly ordered to frame charges against the present petitioner and the same was not considered by the learned Revisional Court, therefore, this Misc. Petition may be allowed and the impugned order of framing of charge may be quashed. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jitendra Shrimali and learned counsel for respondent-complainant Mr. Rahul Tiwari supported the impugned order and submitted that section 13 of Notaries Act, Bars cognizance which stage has already been gone away. Petition may be allowed and the impugned order of framing of charge may be quashed. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jitendra Shrimali and learned counsel for respondent-complainant Mr. Rahul Tiwari supported the impugned order and submitted that section 13 of Notaries Act, Bars cognizance which stage has already been gone away. Now, at the stage of charge, petitioner cannot take benefit of the aforesaid provision. 8. They further submit that since revision petition has already been dismissed against the order of charge, therefore, this misc. petition is not maintainable. 9. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and went through the available record. 10. It is not disputed that at the relevant time, as per allegations the alleged offence was committed purporting the duty of notary public, therefore, Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 comes in play which reads as under :- 11. Section 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) --------- 12. Here, the petitioner is a Notary appointed under the act. The allegations also undisputedly are in the exercise or purported exercise of the offences under the act but there is no written complaint by any Officer who is authorised by the Central Government or State Government either by general or special order empowering to file the complaint. The complaint came to be filed by private person respondent No.- 2 Suresh Kumar, there is nothing to indicate that he was either general or special order authorised by the Central or State Government to file such complaint. It may also be mentioned here that as can be seen from the FIR the case was registered against the other accused persons alleging that the signature of complainant and other persons were forged. 13. From the above, it is apparently clear that the FIR was filed against the present petitioner by an unauthorised person in contravention of Section 13 of the Act, which is not maintainable to the extent against the present petitioner, so as the charge also cannot be framed. 14. This Court in the matter of Gajendra Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. 14. This Court in the matter of Gajendra Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 880/2014 decided on 13.12.2016 on the same grounds quashed the FIR against the petitioner. 15. So far as, maintainability of this misc. petition is concerned. 16. In the matter of Krishnan and Another v. Krishnaveni and Another reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that :- "8- The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to met out justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The Power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide, However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the sessions judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal Court in its juridical process or illegality of sentence or order. -------------------------------- 14. In view of the above discussion, we hold that through the revision before the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 397 is prohibited by sub-section (3) thereof, inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code and as it is paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court under Section 483, the High is justified in interfering with the order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside the order of the Courts below. It remitted the case to the Magistrate for decision on merits after consideration of the evidence. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case. Since the High Court has left the matter to be considered by the Magistrate, it would be in appropriate at this stage to go into that question. It remitted the case to the Magistrate for decision on merits after consideration of the evidence. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case. Since the High Court has left the matter to be considered by the Magistrate, it would be in appropriate at this stage to go into that question. We have only considered the issue of power and jurisdiction of the High Court in the in the context of the revisional power under Section 397 (1) read with Section 397 (3) and the inherent powers. We do not find any justification warranting interference in the appeal." 17. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the arguments submitted by Mr. Rahul Tiwari learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 complainant and learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jitendra Shrimali are not sustainable and this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. 18. Since the main complaint was filed by unauthorised person against the provision of Section 13 of the Notaries Act against the present petitioner, therefore, on such complaint neither cognizance can be taken nor charge can be framed, as such the impugned order is not sustainable and this misc. petition devoids to be allowed which is hereby allowed to the extent of present petitioner-accused Banwari Lal Gupta is quashed and set aside and he is discharged from the aforesaid offences on the ground that complaint was not filed by the authorised person of State Government or Central Government. It is made clear that the trial against the other accused person shall continue without affecting from this order. Petition Allowed in Relation to Notary.