ORDER : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred against the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No. 268/2012, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a complaint was filed against the accused to the effect that plot No. 7-B is situated at Ratanada, Jodhpur and the said property has come in the share of the complainant's husband, as per the family settlement, and therefore, she and her son, Dheeraj are also having share, which goes to her husband-Om Prakash. The family settlement ought to have been honoured by the family, and particularly, under the circumstances that the husband of the complainant is not mentally fit to understand the transaction of the property. The allegation is that a relinquishment deed has been done by the husband of the complainant, that is, Om Prakash in favour of his mother, Smt. Sunder Devi, who had already executed a Will in favour of Pushkar Narayan and the same was identified by one Prem Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a lawyer and is a family member, but no direct role has been attributed to him in the FIR and also the petition of the co-accused has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as prima facie case was found against them during the investigation. Further, it is stated that the allegation is that the property in question has been relinquished by the husband of the complainant, that is, Om Prakash in favour of his mother, Smt. Sunder Devi and the present petitioner is only a lawyer, and on a bare reading of the FIR, the present petitioner has not been attributed with any direct role, which would entitle the complainant to go ahead with the criminal proceeding against him. 4. On the face of it, no offence is made out against the present petitioner and being a family member and a lawyer, who would have advised the family, cannot be a ground to implicate the present petitioner. Thus, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 5. 4. On the face of it, no offence is made out against the present petitioner and being a family member and a lawyer, who would have advised the family, cannot be a ground to implicate the present petitioner. Thus, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case along with the FIR, this Court is of the opinion that the present petitioner, who is merely a lawyer and a family member, has not been attributed with any kind of role, which would deprive the complainant of her lawful property rights, pertaining to the relinquishment deed done by her husband Om Prakash in favour of his mother Sunder Devi. Thus, no offence is made out against the present petitioner as it is stated that the beneficiary is being investigated upon and appropriate investigation has been carried out, and on a bare reading of the FIR, no direct role has been attributed to the present petitioner. 7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present misc. petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.11.2012 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No. 268/2012 is quashed and set aside.