JUDGMENT 1. - In this misc. petition U/s. 482 Cr.P.C., First Information Report No. RC 12 (A)/98/SPE/JAI dated 17.4.1998 of C.B.I., Jaipur qua the petitioner is challenged on the ground that he is an advocate arid Legal Adviser of the Bank of Baroda, Bais Godam Branch, Jaipur and had no culpability. 2. One Ajay Kumar Sharma constituted a firm in the name of M/s. Baba Udyog in the year 1983 and opened an account personating himself as Ashok Kumar Sharma in the name of the above firm in the said Branch. He submitted some documents in order to obtain loan from the Bank in connection with purchase of some machine and submitted four sureties along with four documents to the Bank. On the basis of these documents, the Bank sought opinion from the petitioner and the petitioner who is a counsel of the Bank, gave his opinion. He submitted opinion on the basis of photostat copies as the original papers were not forwarded to him. It is stated that the loan was lateron sanctioned and other credit facilities were give to said firm. Afterwards, the CBI came to know that some mischief had taken place in granting of loan and the first information report was lodged against 5 persons. The petitioner was not arrayed in the said FIR which is Annexure-1 on record. After investigation, the police submitted challan against 4 persons stating in the challan that the case was also made out against the petitioner but kept investigation pending U/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. It has been prayed that the FIR qua petitioner and the proceedings qua him may be quashed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the CBI. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was the Legal Adviser of the Bank and he gave opinion on the basis of documents which were submitted to him. He could not have given opinion that the documents were forged or whether Ajay Kumar Sharma was actually Ashok Kumar Sharma or not. The chargesheet Annexure-2 shows that investigation was kept pending against petitioner U/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. when challan was submitted on 10.4.2000 against other co-accused persons. The charge-sheet also mentioned that there was no evidence against Ajay Kumar Sharma, Smt. Kamla Devi, Ratan Lal Sharma and Ramavtar Gupta and hence they were not being challenged. 5. The chargesheet Annexure-2 shows that investigation was kept pending against petitioner U/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. when challan was submitted on 10.4.2000 against other co-accused persons. The charge-sheet also mentioned that there was no evidence against Ajay Kumar Sharma, Smt. Kamla Devi, Ratan Lal Sharma and Ramavtar Gupta and hence they were not being challenged. 5. Counsel submitted that the petitioner being an advocate gave opinion to his client i.e. Bank of Baroda, Bais Godam Branch on the basis of documents sent to him by the Bank and that in such a case no culpability of the petitioner can be made out. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that challan has been submitted U/ss. 419, 420, 468 & 471 IPC and the petitioner is being implicated with the help of Section 120-B IPC simply because he gave opinion on the basis of documents submitted to him by the Bank. He submitted that it was not the duty of the petitioner to inquire from anybody whether the documents were genuine or not. He submitted that there was no evidence of any criminal conspiracy against the petitioner and, therefore, proceedings against the petitioner which are pending with the CBI may be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI supported the case of prosecution. 6. I have considered the contentions made before me. The Advocates Act does not call for an Advocate to make inquiry and investigation about the documents and then give his opinion. An Advocate gives opinion on the basis of documents which are submitted to him. This is what the petitioner also did. Opinion given by an advocate may be right or wrong but unless his culpability is shown it cannot be said that he was a party to the conspiracy. The petitioner, in my view, has not committed any offence by giving opinion and hence it will be an abuse of the process of the court if the investigation U/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. is kept pending against the petitioner. 7. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed and proceedings U/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. in relation to above FIR are quashed qua petitioner.Petition allowed. *******