The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence of conspiracy and the standard of professional competence in providing legal opinion in the banking sector.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.7 dated 05.01.2014 under Sections 405, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a practising lawyer and a legal retainer of some banks and other financial corporations. The impugned FIR was registered on a complaint given by Senior Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Branch Kharar, against one Neelam Sahni, proprietorof M/s Ganpati Enterprises and her guarantor and mortgagor Sanjeev Kumar, with the allegations that they have embezzled the loan amount of Rs. 10.83 lacs, availed by them from the complainant-Bank on 09.04.2008 and despite there being a mortgage on land, by concealing it from the Bank, without obtaining permission, they have further sold the land and therefore, they have committed the offence under Sections 403, 406, 420 IPC. It is further stated in the FIR that Neelam Sahni, proprietor of M/s Ganpati Enterprises applied for a loan of Rs.9.00 lacs from Vijaya Bank, Branch Kharar and Sanjeev Kumar stood as guarantor by mortgaging his immoveable property measuring 07 marla 02 sarsahi situated in Punjab Enclave, Lohgarh Village, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), as per jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 and had deposited original title deed dated 14.03.2005, which was registered in the office of sub-Registrar, Kharar for the purpose of equitable mortgage. It was further alleged that the complainant-Bank through its Advocate (petitioner) get the necessary verification done in the office of sub-Registrar and Halqa Patwari and it was discovered that Sanjeev Kumar had sold 03 marla 05 sarsahi of land, out of 07 marls 02 sarsahi, in favour of one Baljeet Kaur, by way of sale deed dated 04.10.2006 and mutation had been sanction in her favour. Sanjeev Kumar has further sold 03 marla 05 sarsahi of land in favour of Smt. Anju Bhardwaj, vide registered sale deed dated 18.10.2006 and thus, Sanjeev Kumar had sold the entire mortgaged land before raising loan.

3. The police, before registration of the FIR, conducted an inquiry and submitted a report that Neelan Sahni, Sanjeev Kumar, the then Bank Manager B Ram Krishan Punja and petitioner Ashok Paul Jagga, have connived with each other and thereafter, report of Deputy District Attorney (Legal) was obtained. The Deputy District Attorney (Legal), on 11.12.2013, opined that from the investigation, offence under Section 406, 420, 120-B IPC is made out against the aforesaid four persons, but action against Manager B Ram Krishan Punja and petitioner Ashok Paul Jagga be initiated, after conducting the investigation in depth, however, without conducing any further investigation, FIR was registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is on bail and legal scrutiny report (for short 'LSR') submitted by the petitioner was, in fact, a fake document and this fact is proved from report of the FSL, Mohali, which reads as under:-

"RESULT OF EXAMINATION

I have carefully and thoroughly examined the red enclosed question signature and initials stamped and marked Ql to A5 and have compared them with the relevant standard signature and initials from the original documents in all aspect of handwriting identification and detection of forgery with the help of scientific aid and it has been concluded that

1. The person who wrote the red enclosed standard signature stamped and marked Al to A3 and SI to S84 did not write the red enclosed questioned signature similarly stamped and marked Ql.

2. The person who wrote the red enclosed standard initials stamped and marked A4 to A46 did not write the red enclosed questioned initials similarly stamped and marked Q2 to A15."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per this report, it is apparent that the standard signatures of the pe