ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of order dated 30.07.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat in Criminal Revision No.51/2011 while upholding the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Criminal Case No.392/08, whereby he framed charges for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was only an Advocate, who identified the documents/persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that in accordance with the document at Page 27, the petitioner/Advocate has identified the signatures at Q6, whereas the FSL report at Page 32 clearly pointed out that the forged signatures were only established to the extent of Q1 to Q4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the body of the complaint annexed with the present petition, in which no specific role is attributed to the present petitioner, though mutual allegations between the brothers have been levelled regarding the succession arising out of the Will. 4. From a bare perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner was only conducting himself as an Advocate and identified the signatures at Q6, which has not been found to be forged in the FSL. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hiralal Jain v. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1972 SC 2598, wherein while allowing the criminal appeal, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the appellant therein being engaged by the accused for their identification is no incriminating evidence for the offence of conspiracy. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in that case that in absence of any evidence so as to suggest that the appellant therein had previous knowledge of the fact that the accused were not the rightful claimants, as also to the effect that there was any concert between him and other accused antecedent to the filing of the application and vakalatnamas in court by him, it cannot be said that there is prima facie evidence for the offence of conspiracy against him. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Attar Chand v. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cri.L.J.1034, wherein it has been held that the act of an Advocate cannot be termed either as instigation or as intentional or as conspiracy, and thus, the charges levelled against the petitioner/Advocate therein were quashed. 7. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in Manoranjan Khatua v. State of Orissa, reported in 1990 Cri.L.J. 1583, wherein charge-sheet was submitted by the police against an Advocate for attesting the signature of impersonator and identifying him as real person in bail bonds and affidavit and getting illegal release of accused on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, and cognizance was also taken against the petitioner therein. In that case, it has been held by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court that the order of cognizance was unsustainable for the offences under Sections 466 and 471 IPC without written complaint from Court. It has further been held in that case that the above offences could not split up from offence under Section 419 IPC, and therefore, cognizance of offence under Section 419 IPC was also unsustainable. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench in Jhuntha Ram Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2001(1) RCC 312, wherein it has been held that the act of an Advocate does not call for an Advocate to make inquiry about the documents and then give his opinion. It has further been held that the opinion may be right or wrong unless his culpability is shown, he cannot be held to be a party to the conspiracy. It has also been held that continuing investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the petitioner therein, would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and thus, such proceedings were quashed by the Court. 9. It has also been held that continuing investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the petitioner therein, would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and thus, such proceedings were quashed by the Court. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner by saying that the Advocate is not an exception to the criminal law and just because the present petitioner is an Advocate, he cannot be exempted from the criminal liability for the act of identifying the forged signatures. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that the trial has already commenced, and therefore, any interference at this belated stage shall be detrimental to the cause of justice. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case along with the precedent laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's role in the basic Istagasa itself is not described. Nothing is attributed to the present petitioner so as to show that his act of identifying the persons was not bona fide or he was suffering from some allegations regarding bona fide of the present petitioner in identifying the persons. 12. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner also finds strength in view of the fact that the petitioner is neither a beneficiary nor a gainer in the present transaction, and therefore, no case is made out against him. 13. This Court is thus of the opinion that the petitioner having strict role of an Advocate, has merely identified the persons, while believing the photograph of the person concerned along with the signatures to be correct. Moreover, there is no FSL to prove that Q6, which was actually just above the signature of the petitioner/Advocate identifying the person has not been found to be forged or disbelieved. 14. A bare reading of the Istagasa also does not show any averment, which would reflect that the specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner for the purpose of identifying the said document/person. 14. A bare reading of the Istagasa also does not show any averment, which would reflect that the specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner for the purpose of identifying the said document/person. The complainant himself has not alleged anything directly against the present petitioner and is merely connecting the present petitioner on account of the identification without alleging that the identification was done with some ulterior motive or identification was motivated or identification was unlawful or identification was, on the face of it, done with an ill intention. 15. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the precedent laws cited at the Bar, the present misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Criminal Case No. 392/08 and order dated 30.07.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat in Criminal Revision No.51/2011 as well as the proceedings in pursuance thereof, qua the present petitioner, are quashed and set aside.