Orissa High Court Deliberated on Habeas Corpus petition and highlighted the importance of proper oversight of Notary Publics and Legal Accountability
Title: Partha Sarathi Das v/s State of Odisha & others WP(CRL)No.70 of 2023
Date of Decision: 10th October 2023
CORAM: JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO and JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Introduction
The case under WP(CRL)No.70 of 2023 presents a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus filed by Partha Sarathi Das. He seeks a court directive to produce his wife, opposite party no. 6, before the Court and return her to his custody. The core issue revolves around the legality of the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no. 6, initially solemnized by a notary public.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner and opposite party no. 6 executed their marriage declaration before a Notary Public on 19.04.2023, asserting that they were married on the same day and were living as husband and wife.
On 09.05.2023, individuals identified as opposite parties nos. 7 and 8 allegedly deceived the petitioner and took away opposite party no. 6. They are claimed to have illegally confined her.
The petitioner and opposite party no. 6 were in a romantic relationship, belonged to the same gram panchayat, and studied at the same school.
Mr. Aswini Kumar Mohanty, the Notary Public who attested the marriage declaration, later admitted to notarizing the document legally untenably. He tendered an unconditional apology.
The Inspector in-charge of Baidyanathpur police station, Ganjam, reported that the opposite party no. 6 was staying voluntarily with her parents, denying illegal confinement.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The court reviewed the case’s facts, which included the marriage declaration attested by the Notary Public. The Notary Public admitted to notarizing the document without proper legal grounds and issued an apology.
The court emphasized the need for training programs for notaries, urging the State Government to arrange training sessions to educate notaries about their functions and duties. Additionally, it stressed the importance of maintaining proper registers of notarized documents and verifying the identity of deponents. A report from the Inspector in-charge and a written statement from the opposite party no. 6 indicated that she was staying voluntarily with her parents and was not being illegally confined. Considering this evidence, the court found no grounds for illegal confinement or habeas corpus. The court underscored the necessity for notaries to uphold the law and maintain proper records, ensuring that people’s rights are not prejudiced.
In summary, this case highlights the importance of proper oversight of Notary Publics and the need for them to follow legal procedures diligently to prevent issues like the one presented in this case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Tarishi Verma