Not only the accused persons who have conspired in
performing the forged marriage of the complainant, but the Notary who executed the marriage agreement is also equally responsible in this case. The job of the Notary is defined under the Notary Act. He is not supposed to perform the marriage by executing documents.
Had he properly guided and refused to execute the marriage
agreement to the complainant, then the present offence would not have been committed. This Court is repeatedly receiving the cases of forged marriage performed by the Notary, therefore, the Law Department of the State is required to look into these matters as to how the Notaries and Oath Commissioners are involving themselves in executing the document in respect of the marriage, divorce, etc, which are not permissible under the law. Neither the Notary is authorised to perform the marriage nor competent to execute the divorce deed. Therefore, strict guidelines are required to be issued to the Notaries and oath commissioners for not executing such type of deed, failing which their licence would be terminated.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE Mr . JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
M.Cr.C. No. 44184 of 2020
(Mukesh S/o. Mr Lakshman @ Lakshminarayan. V/s. The state of
M.P.)
Date : 31.12.2020 :
This is the first application filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. by the applicant – Mukesh S/o. Lakshman @ Laxminarayan,
who has been arrested by Police on 16.9.2020 in connection with
Crime No.195/2018, Police Station Jaora City, District Ratlam for the
offence punishable under Section 420, 467 and 468/34 of the IPC.
As per prosecution story, the complainant – Jitendra
submitted a written complaint in Police Station Jaora City on
16.9.2020 against the present applicant Gayatribai, Nageshwar, and
Omprakash @ Prakash alleging that with the common intention they
performed his marriage with Gayatribai in Jaora Court on 9.9.2020
but after 5-6 days of the marriage, Gayatribai fled away from his
house with all her belongings. He gave Rs.1,50,000/- to the present
applicant for this marriage. He inquired about Gayatribai from the
applicant but he threatened him for his false implication in the rape
case. Accordingly, the police have registered the case against the
present applicant under the aforesaid offences. During the
investigation, the police have recovered the stamp papers and
arrested the present applicant, Gayatribai, Nageshwar and
Omprakash and recorded their statements u/s. 27 of the Evidence
Act. According to them, they have distributed the amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- amongst themselves.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is in
custody since 16.9.2020 and the trial may take time to conclude. He
has only introduced Gayatribai to the complainant for marriage and
thereafter, he does not know whereabout of Gayatribai. He is also
not aware of the past antecedents of Gayatribai, hence he is entitled
to bail.
Learned Panel Advocate appearing for the
respondent/State opposes the prayer by submitting that the applicant
took Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant and got performed the
marriage of Gayatribai with the complainant through Notary who is
not authorised to perform the marriage. The applicant has signed on
the marriage agreement as a witness, therefore, he is not entitled to
bail.
I have perused the case-diary. The complainant met with
Nageshwar for his marriage. Thereafter he got introduced Gayatribai
and Omprakash with Nageshwar and performed their marriage on
9.9.2020. Gayatribai is missing since 14.9.2020 from the house of the complainant and she has also threatened the complainant for his
false implication in the rape case.
Not only the accused persons who have conspired in
performing the forged marriage of the complainant, but the Notary
who executed the marriage agreement is also equally responsible in
this case. The job of the Notary is defined under the Notary Act. He
is not supposed to perform the marriage by executing documents.
Had he properly guided and refused to execute the marriage
agreement to the complainant, then the present offence would not
have been committed. This Court is repeatedly receiving the cases of
forged marriage performed by the Notary, therefore, the Law
Department of the State is required to look into these matters as to
how the Notaries and Oath Commissioners are involving themselves
in executing the document in respect of the marriage, divorce, etc,
which are not permissible under the law. Neither the Notary is
authorised to perform the marriage nor competent to execute the
divorce deed. Therefore, strict guidelines are required to be issued to
the Notaries and oath commissioners for not executing such type of
deed, failing which their licence would be terminated. Let a copy of
this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Law Department of
State of M.P. For taking action in the matter.
However, without commenting anything on the merits of
the case, subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) by the
applicant in the trial Court, he shall be enlarged on bail and upon his
furnishing, a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such
dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the
pendency of trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated
under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- so
deposited by the applicant be kept in the FDR in any nationalised
bank fetching maximum rate of interest and the same shall be
disbursed after the conclusion of the trial.
Before releasing the applicant from the custody the jail
authorities are directed to medically examine him in order to rule out
the possibility of COVID -19 infections and shall comply with the
direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No.
1/2020.
C.C. as per rules.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
V. JUDGE
Alok/-
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment