12025:HHC:36628 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 99 of 2025 Reserved on : 1.8.2025 Decided on : 31.10.2025 Mahesh Chand Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Ms. Dhanwanti, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr.Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. Ms. Seema Azad, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. _____________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge Petitioner Mahesh Chand Sharma has filed the present Cr. Revision, under Section 438 read with 22025:HHC:36628 Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), for quashing the charges, framed vide order dated 13.1.2025, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case FIR No. 89 of 2020, dated 12.3.2020, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 2. In addition to this, relief of quashing further proceedings, pending before the learned trial Court, in case No. 74/2 of 2021, titled as, ‘State of H.P. versus Vivek Kumar & others’, qua the petitioner, has been sought. 3. According to the case, as set up by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has lodged the FIR in question, with the following allegations: 32025:HHC:36628 “She was owning three trucks bearing numbers HP-12E-9671, HP-12D-9871 and HP-12E-6682. After death of her husband about a year back, she sold her one of the trucks bearing number HP-12D-6682 in favour of one Shri Shyam Lal, son of Shri Bal Krishan, resident of Village and P.O. Rajpura, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. for a sum of Rs. Eight Lakhs only who has to still pay a balance consideration of Rs.2,80,000/- to her. However, he is making excuses to pay the balance consideration amount. The vehicles bearing numbers HP-12E- 9671 and HP-12D-9871 were parked in Chownkiwala Shiv Parking for the last about seven to eight months and when she called for the driver today on 12.03.2020, it was found that the insurance of the vehicle has been lapsed and when she went to get the insurance of the vehicle done, it was revealed that the vehicle is now in the name of accused namely Vivek, son of Shri Jagdish Chand, resident of Ward No. 1, Baddi, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P. who is having mobile number 92180-00005. When Shri Vivek was contacted on the ibid mobile number and asked to remain present in the police station, he told that he has purchased the vehicle from one Shri Shyam Lal who is resident of Rajpura for a sum of Rs. Twelve Lakhs only. He also told that Sh. Shyam Lal has got prepared the documents of transferring vehicle in his favour. S/Shri Vivek and Shyam Lal have forged the documents in connivance with each other and hence they may be booked for the commission of offences under law. She also alleged that accused Shri Vivek has transferred the truck owned by her bearing number HP-12E-9671 by forging the documents.” 4. On the basis of above facts, the Police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion and the matter was, thereafter, investigated by the Police and the petitioner has also 42025:HHC:36628 been booked, in the said case, on the basis of the fact that he has attested the affidavit, executed by respondent No. 2. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after completion of investigation, police has filed charge- sheet, before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner, vide order dated 13.1.2025. 6. The order, framing the charge, has been assailed, on the ground, that the learned trial Court has not applied its judicial mind, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as no charge could have been framed against the petitioner, as the complaint against him was not made by the authorized Officer of the Central Government or the State Government. The petitioner is stated to be Notary Public and he has attested the affidavit, while exercising the powers under the Notaries Act, 1952. This fact, according to 52025:HHC:36628 the petitioner, has not been considered by the learned trial Court. 7. The order framing the charges is stated to be passed, without considering the provisions of the Notaries Act. 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that the learned trial Court can not take cognizance against him, in view of the provisions of the Notaries Act. 9. According to the petitioner, there are no allegations levelled by respondent No. 2, against him, as FIR in question has been lodged only against Vivek Kumar and Shyam Lal. 10. Petitioner has further assailed the order passed by the learned trial Court, by virtue of which, the charges have been framed, on the ground that the learned trial Court has not considered the specific provisions of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, while framing the charges, against him. 62025:HHC:36628 11. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the present petition. 12. When, put to notice, respondent No. 1-State has filed reply, supporting the order, by virtue of which, charges have been framed by learned trial Court, against the petitioner, on the ground that petitioner being Notary Public, is under legal obligation to perform his duties, as per the Notaries Act, and he is bound to verify the signatory's identity, confirming his/her understanding of document and administer oaths or affirmations, before attesting the document. As such, according to respondent No. 1, petitioner has failed to discharge his legal responsibility. 13. The petitioner, by way of Cr.M.P. No. 3168 of 2025, has sought indulgence of this Court to place on record the copy of charge sheet, which application has been allowed, vide order dated 1.8.2025, and the copy of charge sheet has been ordered to be taken on record. 72025:HHC:36628 14. As per the charge-sheet, the allegations have been levelled against accused Vivek Kumar that he had hatched conspiracy with petitioner Mahesh Chand Sharma and accused Shyam Singh and got prepared the forged documents, and transferred the truck of the complainant. 15. As per the charge-sheet, the role attributed to the petitioner is qua the fact that he has attested the affidavit, allegedly sworn in by Smt. Charanjit Kaur (respondent No.2) and also attested the affidavit of Vivek Kumar (accused). According to the stand, as taken by respondent No. 1, it is not in dispute that petitioner is Notary Public, and as per the case, set up against him, he has attested the affidavit of respondent No. 2, as well as, of accused Vivek Kumar. 16. Admittedly, the complaint in the present case, has not been made by the Officer, authorized by the Central Government or State Government, by issuing general or specific orders, in this behalf. In this regard, 82025:HHC:36628 it is profitable to reproduce the provisions of Section 13 of the Notaries Act. “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.” 17. Once, the legislature, in its wisdom, has created a bar, upon the Courts to take cognizance, then, in the absence of any complaint, made by any Officer, authorized by the Central Government or by the State Government, by general or specific order, in this behalf, then, cognizance taken by the learned trial Court, in this case, is bad in law. 18. Considering the aforesaid fact, the alleged act of the petitioner in attesting the affidavit or in exercising the functions, for which, he has been 92025:HHC:36628 authorized, under the Notaries Act, is entitled for the protection of Section 13 of Notaries Act, and learned trial Court, cannot take cognizance, against the petitioner. 19. The allegations against the petitioner have been made that he, while acting as Notary Public, has attested the affidavit of Smt. Charanjit Kaur (respondent No. 2). Meaning thereby, attestation of affidavit was in discharge of the authority, given to him, by the Notaries Act, and not in the individual capacity. In other words, the petitioner has acted as Notary Public and performed the duties, under the Notaries Act. On the basis of the said statutory bar, as created by Section 13 of the Notaries Act, the petition is liable to be accepted. 20. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that without the complaint being made by the Officers, authorized by the Central Government or State Government, by general or 102025:HHC:36628 specific order, in this behalf, the cognizance taken by the learned trial Court, is bad in law. 21. Consequently, present petition is allowed and order dated 13.1.2025, passed by the learned trial Court framing the charges against the petitioner in FIR No. 89 of 2020, dated 12.3.2020, and resultant proceedings thereto, i.e. charges, are ordered to be quashed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge October 31, 2025 Kalpana