Authorised Govt Officer's Complaint Necessary To Prosecute Notary: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per Section 13(i) of the Notaries Act, a complaint by an officer authorized by the government concerned is necessary for taking cognizance of offence committed by a notary public exercising functions under the Act.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, after referring to the provision and noting non-compliance, set aside all further proceedings against a notary arrayed as an accused in a crime, and observed thus:

“Admittedly, the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and a notary public. It is also admitted that the alleged consent letter was attested by the petitioner in discharge of his function as a notary public…From the above provision it is clear that for taking cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in exercise of his functions under the Notaries Act, complaint made by an officer authorized by the concerned government is necessary.”

The petitioner in the case was a practicing lawyer and a notary public. The prosecution allegation was that the accused persons 1 and 2 with the petitioner's help created a fabricated consent letter in 2021 purported to have been executed by the de facto complainant. This fabricated letter was then produced before the Kozhikode Corporation to obtain license for conducting a cool bar and bakery.

She was arrayed as the 3^rd accused in the crime and it was alleged that she committed offences under Section 465 [Punishment for forgery], 468 [Forgery for purpose of cheating] and 471 [Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record] of the Indian Penal Code.

Seeking to quash all further proceedings, the petitioner had come before the High Court. It was argued that the mandate under Section 13(i) was not complied with in the present case.

The Court agreed with the argument and relied on Jolsna E.P v. State of Kerala and another [2020 (6) KHC 334], wherein it was held that mandatory requirement under Section 13 has to be complied with to prosecute a notary public.

The Court thus allowed the plea and set aside all further proceedings made against the petitioner following the registration of the crime.

Case No: Crl.MC No. 7127 of 2022

Case Title: Malu K. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 33

Counsel for the petitioner: V.A. Vinod, Anil Kumar K.P.

Counsel for the respondents: Nirmal S., Veena Hari, Bindu O.V. – Sr. Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Order