The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific evidence linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy and the consideration of subsequent events, such as loan repayment, in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the petitioner, learned APP Ms. Asmita Patel for the respondent State. Though respondent No.2 is served, he has chosen not to remain present.

2. By way of this petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being I – C.R. No. 384 of 2013 registered with Rajkot “A” Division Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the IPC.

3. The facts, which can be stated briefly are that the first informant, he is authorized officer of Gruh Finance Limited. It is alleged in the impugned FIR that the accused in connivance with each other prepared forged documents and placed them as genuine to avail the loan from the Gruh Finance Limited. At the time of availing the loan, the documents, which are promised to be genuine, were given. It is also alleged that some material facts were suppressed for availing loan from some other financial institution. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that he being an advocate has prepared and tendered forged Title Clearance Certificate qua the property, which is sought to be mortgaged. In nutshell, stating such allegation, offence u/s 406, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the IPC have been lodged by way of impugned FIR.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani pressing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Surendra Nath Pande and another Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2020) 18 SCC 730 to submit that the issue is squarely covered up by the judgment. He would further submit that the role of the present petitioner alleged in the commission of offence is limited to prepare Title Clearance Certificate. He further submits that taking into account the contents of the FIR, except bald and omnibus statement, no other allegations are levelled so as it brings the petitioner under the clutch of offences u/s 406, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the IPC i.e. criminal breach of trust. Lastly, it is submitted that since no contents of the offence is made out, allowing the prosecution may in all of likelihood to be abortive and futile. Upon such submissions, he prays to allow this petition.

5. On the other hand, learned APP Ms. Asmita Patel would submit that against some of the accused, Criminal Case No.4233 of 2014 has been tried unsuccessfully, whereby learned JMFC recorded clear acquittal in favour of the accused, more particularly, since the amount of loan is repaid to the Gruh Finance Limited, the fact which is surfaced. She has also placed on record statement of the first informant recorded by the police, which discloses that the amount of loan has been repaid by the accused and total amount is recovered. In statement, it has also been recorded that the Gruh Finance Limited has decided to withdraw the criminal case that arose from FIR being I – C.R. No. 384 of 2013 and in that statement, the officer of the Gruh Finance Limited assured to withdraw said criminal case. That speaks volume in favour of the petitioner. Both the copies of judgment and statement are taken on record. Upon such submission, learned APP prays to pass necessary orders.

6. Regard being held to the rival submissions of both the parties, let refer observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Surendra Nath Pande (supra), more particuarly, para 4 to 6, which reads as under:-

“4. Taking into account the contents of the FIR, we are left with the impression that the said allegations are bald and omnibus and do not make any specific reference to the role of the appellants in any alleged conspiracy. In Central Bureau of Investigation versus K. Narayana Rao [(2012) 9 SCC 512] to which one of us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.) was a party, it has been held by this Court that a criminal prosecution on the basis of such bald and omnibus statement/allegations against the panel advocates of the Bank ought not to be allowed to proceed as the same constitute an abuse of the pro