ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the CrPC filed on behalf of petitioner Rajesh Kumar Malviya (correct name Rajesh Kumar Makwey) is directed against order dated 3.8.2018 passed by the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 292/2015, whereby a charge under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120B of the IPC, was framed against petitioner Rajesh and co-accused persons Nand Kishore Taran, Suraj Bali, K.L. Masaniya and Amrit Lal Gaur. 2. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder : G. Adheen, Deputy Chief (Law) of Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd., Bhopal (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as “HUDCO”) lodged a first information report on 14th October, 2010 in Police Station Hoshangabad against co-accused persons Nand Kishore Taran, Suraj Bali, K.L. Masaniya Advocate, Amrit Lal Gaur, Sunil Gaur and petitioner Rajesh Kumar to the effect that co-accused Suraj Bali Gaur obtained a home loan in the sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- from HUDCO for purchase of a house constructed upon survey No. 49/14, plot No. 7, admeasuring 1338 sq. ft.. Aforesaid house was mortgaged by co-accused Suraj Bali Gaur with HUDCO by way of security for aforesaid loan. Later, Suraj Bali defaulted on installments and the HUDCO instituted Civil Suit No. 13-B of 2005 against Suraj Bali Gaur for recovery of the unpaid amount. Aforesaid civil suit was decreed in favour of the HUDCO by judgment and decree dated 23.1.2007 passed by the civil Court. It was learnt that the house which was mortgaged by way of security with HUDCO, originally belonged to Amrit Lal Gaur. He sold aforesaid house on 16.10.1998 to one Vinod Chandra Gupta. Aforesaid Vinod Chandra Gupta sold that house on 4.6.2001 to Arun Chaudhary. However, Amrit Lal Gaur also executed a registered sale deed of the same property in favour of Suraj Bali Gaur on 21.9.2001. 3. Co-accused K. L. Masaniya, Advocate had given search report of the house. Sunil Gaur of Shivam Constructions and Engineers and petitioner Rajesh Kumar of Ajay Constructions had prepared map of the house and N. K. Taran was subRegistrar, who had issued No-encumbrance Certificate in respect of the house in question; therefore, charge sheet was filed against all of aforesaid persons. 4. Sunil Gaur of Shivam Constructions and Engineers and petitioner Rajesh Kumar of Ajay Constructions had prepared map of the house and N. K. Taran was subRegistrar, who had issued No-encumbrance Certificate in respect of the house in question; therefore, charge sheet was filed against all of aforesaid persons. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner Rajesh is a Civil Engineer and professionally prepares maps of houses for his customers for being produced before Municipal Authorities for obtaining permission for construction. In the present case also, he had prepared map of the house in question on directions of his customer for remuneration, which is not an offence. Thus, even if all allegations made against the petitioner are taken at their face value and presumed to be true, no offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120B of the IPC would be constituted; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be discharged. 5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the revision petition. 6. It may be noted in this regard that only allegations against the present petitioner is that he had prepared the map of the house, which was mortgaged with HUDCO for obtaining the loan. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has conceded that apart from aforesaid, there is no allegation against the petitioner. Thus, there is nothing on record to suggest that he was, in any manner, involved in a conspiracy to defraud the HUDCO. Mere preparation of a map of a house, which was offered as collateral for a loan is not an offence because the petitioner was not duty-bound to inquire into the ownership of the land on which it was constructed. He was well within his right to prepare the map as per instructions of his customer without making any inquiry as to the ownership of land or the house. It cannot be presumed simply on the basis of the fact that he had prepared map of the house that he was part of the conspiracy along with Amrit Lal and/or Suraj Bali Gaur to defraud the HUDCO. 7. In these circumstances, the trial Court grossly erred in framing a charge against the petitioner as aforesaid. It cannot be presumed simply on the basis of the fact that he had prepared map of the house that he was part of the conspiracy along with Amrit Lal and/or Suraj Bali Gaur to defraud the HUDCO. 7. In these circumstances, the trial Court grossly erred in framing a charge against the petitioner as aforesaid. This charge is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as there is no material on record of the case which is capable of being controverted into legal evidence at the trial on the basis of which charge may be substantiated. Hence, petitioner Rajesh deserves to be discharged. 8. In the result, this criminal revision succeeds. Petitioner Rajesh is discharged in the matter. The trial Court shall proceed against remaining accused persons in accordance with law.