IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA ON THE 23^rd OF JULY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9957 of 2024 (MOHD. ZAFAR KHAN S/O SHRI ABDUL AJIJ KHAN Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER)

Appearance:

(SHRI AVINASH SIRPURKAR, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI YOGESH GUPTA- ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)

(MS. VARSHA SINGH THAKUR – GA FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)

(SHRI SHUBHAM VERMA – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

1. Petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of FIR dated 17.7.2022 bearing Crime No.148/2022 registered at P.S. Balwada, District Khargone for the offence under Section 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Sulochana had purchased the land in question from the land owner Rajendra by registered sale deed dated 23.2.2016 for consideration of Rs.11 Lakhs, but thereafter the co-accused Rajendra, even after the sale of the aforesaid land, fraudulently obtained agricultural loan amounting to Rs.7 Lakhs from Union Bank of India, Branch Bagod. Present petitioner is a practising lawyer. He was Panel Lawyer of the Union Bank of India and with the conspiracy of other co-accused persons and to defraud the complainant, he has prepared the false and forged search report with the ulterior motive for releasing the Bank loan in favour of the co-accused Rajendra. Complainant Sulochana preferred a written complaint to the S.P. Khargone. On the basis of the aforesaid, offence has been registered against the present petitioner and other co-accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. He is a practising lawyer at Badwah and empanelled advocate with the Union Bank of India. With the bonafide intention he has prepared the search report after going through the data available on the website of the Revenue Department, wherein he found that the said land belongs to Rajendra Jat. When the petitioner came to know that co-accused Rajendra Jat has fraudulently obtained the aforesaid loan from the Bank, he issued notice to the Rajendra Jat and guarantor Jitendra Jat to deposit the aforesaid amount in the bank. The loan was sanctioned by the Bank Manager and the petitioner had no role in sanctioning of the loan. He has been released on anticipatory bail by the order of this Court. He is a 61 years old person. Nothing is available on record that he has committed the alleged offence. Hence, it is prayed that the aforesaid FIR and all the subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against him be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/State opposes the prayer by submitting that on the basis of the cogent evidence available on record, prima facie aforesaid offence is made out against the present petitioner. The fact of fraud and forgery may be proved after recording the evidence. The case of the prosecution is based upon the cogent documentary evidence. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Counsel for the respondent No.2 also opposes the petition and prays for its rejection.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary with due care.

7. It is admitted position that at the time of incident petitioner was working as Panel Lawyer with Union Bank of India, Branch Bagod and on the basis of the search report submitted by him, the above bank has sanctioned loan of Rs.9 Lakhs in favour of co-accused Rajendra Jat, in which co-accused Jitendra Jat is guarantor. It is a common practice that most of the banks obtain legal opinion for granting loan. It is an integral component of advocates working in the banking sector.

8. A lawyer, on hi