ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the charge sheet arising out of the FIR No.300/2012 registered at Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of IPC.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Ram Pravesh Singh, Bank Manager, Bank of India, Branch Baikunthpur lodged a written complaint on 10.11.2012 at Police Station Baikunthpur alleging that 10 persons after obtaining forged revenue documents from the concerned Tehsildar, in connivance with the concerned the then Branch Manager namely Kishore Kumar Singh, got prepared a Search Report through the said documents and obtained a loan to the tune of Rs.27,59,000/- and thereby, cheated the Bank. Based on such allegations, the offence has been registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an Advocate and he was not involved in defrauding the Bank. There is no evidence in the entire charge sheet to show that in any manner, the petitioner has participated in any forgery. Merely because the petitioner’s opinion, which he gave in the Search Report, was not acceptable, he cannot be criminally prosecuted as the ingredients and elements of the aforesaid offences mentioned in the charge sheet, are clearly missing against him. Learned counsel submits that there is no evidence that the present petitioner had taken any pecuniary advantage from the borrower for issuance of non-encumbrance certificate. He also submits that the concerned Branch Manager has also sent a letter to Police Station, Baikunthpur on 22.12.2012 stating that he does not want to pursue the criminal prosecution against the petitioner further on the basis of the Search Report. He further submits that mere negligence, if any, in discharge of professional duty by the petitioner - Advocate, would not render him criminally liable for the aforesaid offences. He places reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Subha Jakkanwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 SCC OnLine Chh. 136.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner did not discharge his professional duty properly and submitted a false non-encumbrance certificate certifying that the borrowers hold clear and marketable title, free from all encumbrances, therefore, it cannot be said that he has not committed the offence and is not criminally liable. She draws the attention of the Court towards the statement of the concerned Branch Manager recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC, in which, he has clearly stated that the present petitioner in connivance with the then Branch Manager has disbursed the loan to the borrowers, who are otherwise not eligible. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition with utmost circumspection.

7. In the matter of Subha Jakkanwar (supra), the following question came up for consideration :

“Whether an Advocate acting professionally and in discharge of his / her professional duty renders an opinion by giving non-encumbrance certificate to bank for granting loan to a borrower certifying that he has legal and marketable title over the land in question free from all encumbrances and subsequently, the same is found to be non-acceptable / untrue, can be prosecuted / criminally liable for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of the IPC for non-exhibiting greater professional care and competence?

8. In the aforesaid judgment, after analysing the case laws, it was finally held that an Advocate, while performing his official duties, cannot be held liable for an offence in regard to which no direct evidence has been adduced against him. Criminal liability against an opining Advocate arises only when an Advocate is actively participating in a plan to defraud the