JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant petition stands instituted, under, Section 482 of Cr. P.C., where through, the petitioner/accused hence espouses, vis-à-vis his incriminatory role, borne in FIR No. 332 of 2008, of, 11.7.2008, registered with Police Station, Sadar, Distt. Mandi, under Section 201, 465, 120-B, 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and, under Section 3 of Benami Transaction Act, 1988, an apt relief of it being quashed, and, has also prayed, that, consequential therewith proceedings, pending, be also, vis-à-vis his incriminatory role, hence quashed and set aside. 2. A sale deed qua the apt property, detailed, in the police report, was, executed on 24.4.2008, between the vendor named therein, and, one Khoob Ram. The execution of the aforesaid sale deed is alleged to be ridden with a vice, of it, being a benami transaction, (i) given the vendee named therein, one Khoob Ram, as reflected in his salary certificate, appended with the file, as maintained by the Investigating Officer concerned, rather not holding the apt financial capacity, for, liquidating the sale consideration, vis-à-vis the vendor, of, the afore sale deed. The incriminatory role, ascribed to the petitioner/accused herein, (i) is comprised in his notarizing, on 24.4.2008, an agreement to sell, drawn interse one Khoob Ram, and, one Sudhir Malik. The prosecution, does not contest, the factum qua the authentic signatures, of, executants thereof, and of the witnesses thereto, hence existing thereon. However, the emphatic pointed focus of the prosecution qua an incriminatory role, being fastenable, upon, the petitioner/accused, is grooved (a) in Sudhir Malik, executant thereof, not, in contemporaneity, vis-à-vis, the petitioner/accused hence notarizing it, hence recording his personal appearance before him, (ii) it being presented before him by a person, other than the signatories thereto, and, hence the petitioner colluding with the other coaccused, conniving whereof is alleged, to, stand sparked, by his rather hence ante-dating, and, ante-timing(s), the apt agreement to sell. 3. The ascription, of, the afore incriminatory role, vis-à-vis the petitioner/accused, would prima-facie, stand grooved, in, entrenched tenacity, upon, material existing on record, with vivid disclosure(s) therein, qua (i) the apt sale deed and agreement to sell being executed, at timings, hence holding interse co-incidence and synchronization, (ii) whereupon the factum of personal appearance of one Sudhir Malik, before the petitioner/accused, at the relevant time, would obviously stand concluded to be hence precluded, whereupon, the, accused would be amenable to face prosecution. However, with want, of, any evidence, vis-à-vis, the apt co-incidence(s) and synchronization(s), in, interse timings, qua afore documents’ and also obviously, vis-à-vis, the, apt simultaneity, of, execution of sale deed, and, of, apt agreement to sell, (iii) rather contrarily, with the apt sale deed, being evidently executed at Mandi, at 3:30 p.m., and with the register maintained by the petitioner/accused, not, elucidating therein the time, of its presentation, before him, (iii) thereupon with the evidence qua the apt co-incidence(s), and, synchronization(s) in timings, interse the drawing of sale deed, and the drawing and execution, of, agreement to sell, rather being grossly amiss, (iv) therefrom it stands concomitantly concluded that the incriminatory role, assigned vis-à-vis the accused, ought to both falter and stagger, (v) emphatically also when the prosecution has also not adduced, at this stage, any evidence with any prima-facie display therein, that, prior to 3:30 p.m., on 24.4.2008, the executants’ of the agreement to sell, rather lacking transport facilities to travel, upto, Shimla, and, thereafter theirs returning to Mandi (iv) whereupon it is to be also concluded that at the relevant time, of, presentation and execution of agreement to sell, before the accused/petitioner, for its being hence notarized by him, all executants thereto, hence recording before him their respective personal appearance(s), besides witnesses thereto hence also recording their respective personal appearance(s) before him, nor hence any incriminatory role, is, ascribable, qua him. 4. Even though, the learned Additional Advocate General, has contended with vigor, that, the register maintained by the petitioner/accused, hence holding blank pages therein, thereupon, at this stage, hence a penally inculpable offence, being ascribable to him. However, the aforesaid contention is rejected, as any leaving of any blank pages in the apt register, as maintained by him, maybe a mere irregularity, and, it rather obviously cannot make any vivid display, qua, his hence holding any criminal conspiracy, with, the co-accused, in, FIR No. 332 of 2008. 5. However, the aforesaid contention is rejected, as any leaving of any blank pages in the apt register, as maintained by him, maybe a mere irregularity, and, it rather obviously cannot make any vivid display, qua, his hence holding any criminal conspiracy, with, the co-accused, in, FIR No. 332 of 2008. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, has with much emphasis, made, a serious vehement contention before this Court, that, with Section 13 of the Notaries Act 1953, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “Cognizance of offence- (i) 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 office authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf. (a) rather barring Courts of law to take cognizance, vis-à-vis, any offence committed by the Public Notary; “(b) hence in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions, under, this Act save upon the complaint in writing made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf”. Hence, therefrom he contends that when the aforesaid complaint, is not rather visibly and evidently, in consonance therewith, given its being not made by any authorized officer, (c) thereupon, the taking, of, any cognizance by the learned trial Magistrate, qua the petitioner/accused, being in breach, of, the apt preemptory mandate. 6. The aforesaid submission, of the learned counsel, for the petitioner, is well-founded, as it stands anchored, upon, a judgment, rendered by the High Court of Karnataka, reported in 1999 (Suppl) Civil Court Cases 337, pronounced in case titled as V. Ranga Ramu Versus State., besides it is anchored upon the compatible therewith factual matrix, and compatible existence therewith, of, analogous material, (i) thereupon rather this Court is constrained to conclude that prima-facie, the, implication of the accused in the FIR No. 332 of 2008, vis-à-vis, his incriminatory role, rather lacking the apt tenacity, and, also the apt consequential therewith proceedings, pending before the Court concerned also being amenable to be quashed and set aside, pointedly only, vis-à-vis, the incriminatory role, of, the accused. 7. With these observations, the instant petition is allowed. All pending application(s), if any are also disposed of. No costs.