Court Emphasizes Mandatory Written Complaint Requirement for Legal Action Against Notaries
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, quashed the prosecution against Malu K., a practicing lawyer and notary public, for alleged document fabrication. The Court underscored the necessity of adhering to Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act, 1952, which mandates a complaint in writing by an officer authorized by the Central or State Government before any legal proceedings can be initiated against a notary.
The case arose from allegations that Malu K., along with two other accused, fabricated a consent letter purportedly executed by the defacto complainant to obtain a business license from the Kozhikode Corporation. The prosecution was initiated under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which pertain to forgery-related offences.
Advocates for the petitioner argued that the lack of a compliant written complaint under Section 13(1) rendered the prosecution unsustainable. The Court concurred, referencing a previous decision in Jolsna E.P v. State of Kerala, which highlighted the importance of such compliance to protect notaries from frivolous prosecutions.
The ruling underscores the protective framework established by the Notaries Act, ensuring notaries can perform their duties without fear of unauthorized legal actions. The Court's decision reflects a careful consideration of the procedural safeguards necessary for maintaining the integrity and functionality of notarial services.
Bottom Line:
Prosecution against a notary public cannot be initiated without compliance with Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act, which mandates a complaint in writing made by an officer authorized by the Central or State Government.
Statutory provision(s): Notaries Act, 1952 Section 13(1); Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 465, 468, 471
Malu.K. v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2840490
