R.D. Kothari, J.

1. Rameshbhai Vallabhbhai Korat - petitioner herein - is a practising Advocate at Surat. He has issued one title clearance certificate in respect of Revenue Survey No. 598 of village Adajan. The said title clearance certificate said to be erroneous or to be precise, false. The petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for offence under Secs.465, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. for that. The present petition is filed praying to quash the said prosecution. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tolia for the petitioner.

2. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State. Respondent No. 2, though duly served, has chosen not to appear.

3. Few relevant facts are, thus:

"One Vallabhbhai Nanjibhai Savani had approached the present petitioner with a request to give title clearance report in respect of above-referred land i.e. Revenue Survey No. 598 of village Adajan, District-Surat. The said property is also known as Town Planning Scheme No. 10, Final Plot No. 27. The petitioner has said to have examined the revenue record, history of the property and has also made inspection at the office of Sub-Registrar, Surat. Upon examining the material, petitioner had opined that land in question stood in the name of (i) Sunilkumar Hiralal, (ii) Prakashkumar Hiralal, (iii) Dahiben Wd/o. Hiralal Govindji, (iv) Ilaben Hiralal and (v) Daxaben Hiralal. He has also given opinion that property in question does not have any lien, right or any charge nor there is any easementary right over the said property. He stated in his opinion that the property has a marketable title. The said opinion was given on 21-2-2005."

The present complaint is lodged on 26-5-2005 at Rander Police Station as I-C.R. No. 175 of 2005. The complainant is one of the sub-plot holder, who has said to have purchased the land from the original land owner. The details of the complaint in order to consider the grievance of the complainant when read, it does not inspire confidence. For the purpose of present discussion, it is not necessary to go into the detail of the complaint. It is the say of the complainant that he had purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated 5-8-2000 from the original owner.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Tolia for the petitioner, after referring the facts of the case and drawing attention to title clearance report issued by the present petitioner, has pointed out that present complaint is the third complaint in succession in respect of land in question. The first complaint was lodged as I-C.R. No. 168 of 2005 at Rander Police Station. Though the petitioner was joined as an accused in the complaint, after investigation the petitioner was dropped as an accused in the charge-sheet. Copy of charge-sheet is on record. In the second complaint i.e. I-C.R. No. 264 of 2005, P.I. has filed a report in favour of present petitioner. Said report is on record. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also pointed out that on being inquired by the police, Talati has written a letter to P.I. in respect of land in question and has stated that land is an agricultural land and N.A. permission is not granted. That being so, assertion of the complainant that he is a purchaser of sub-plot from the original owner, losses the considerable force. Learned Advocate Mr. Tolia submitted that at best the petitioner can be said to have acted negligently but, fastening of criminal liability in the circumstances is clearly erroneous. Neither the original owner of land nor Vallabhbhai Nanjibhai, who had approached the petitioner for opinion, has come forward to file the complaint. Learned Advocate has drawn attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I., Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, reported in, 2012 (9) SCC 512. Relying on the same, it was submitted that present petition may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the F.I.R.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval, opposing the