ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the charge sheet arising out of the FIR No.300/2012 registered at Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of IPC. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Ram Pravesh Singh, Bank Manager, Bank of India, Branch Baikunthpur lodged a written complaint on 10.11.2012 at Police Station Baikunthpur alleging that 10 persons after obtaining forged revenue documents from the concerned Tehsildar, in connivance with the concerned the then Branch Manager namely Kishore Kumar Singh, got prepared a Search Report through the said documents and obtained a loan to the tune of Rs.27,59,000/- and thereby, cheated the Bank. Based on such allegations, the offence has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an Advocate and he was not involved in defrauding the Bank. There is no evidence in the entire charge sheet to show that in any manner, the petitioner has participated in any forgery. Merely because the petitioner’s opinion, which he gave in the Search Report, was not acceptable, he cannot be criminally prosecuted as the ingredients and elements of the aforesaid offences mentioned in the charge sheet, are clearly missing against him. Learned counsel submits that there is no evidence that the present petitioner had taken any pecuniary advantage from the borrower for issuance of non-encumbrance certificate. He also submits that the concerned Branch Manager has also sent a letter to Police Station, Baikunthpur on 22.12.2012 stating that he does not want to pursue the criminal prosecution against the petitioner further on the basis of the Search Report. He further submits that mere negligence, if any, in discharge of professional duty by the petitioner - Advocate, would not render him criminally liable for the aforesaid offences. He places reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Subha Jakkanwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 SCC OnLine Chh. 136. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner did not discharge his professional duty properly and submitted a false non-encumbrance certificate certifying that the borrowers hold clear and marketable title, free from all encumbrances, therefore, it cannot be said that he has not committed the offence and is not criminally liable. 136. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner did not discharge his professional duty properly and submitted a false non-encumbrance certificate certifying that the borrowers hold clear and marketable title, free from all encumbrances, therefore, it cannot be said that he has not committed the offence and is not criminally liable. She draws the attention of the Court towards the statement of the concerned Branch Manager recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC, in which, he has clearly stated that the present petitioner in connivance with the then Branch Manager has disbursed the loan to the borrowers, who are otherwise not eligible. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition with utmost circumspection. 7. In the matter of Subha Jakkanwar (supra), the following question came up for consideration : “Whether an Advocate acting professionally and in discharge of his / her professional duty renders an opinion by giving non-encumbrance certificate to bank for granting loan to a borrower certifying that he has legal and marketable title over the land in question free from all encumbrances and subsequently, the same is found to be non-acceptable / untrue, can be prosecuted / criminally liable for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of the IPC for non-exhibiting greater professional care and competence? 8. In the aforesaid judgment, after analysing the case laws, it was finally held that an Advocate, while performing his official duties, cannot be held liable for an offence in regard to which no direct evidence has been adduced against him. Criminal liability against an opining Advocate arises only when an Advocate is actively participating in a plan to defraud the Bank. Merely because his opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be criminally prosecuted particularly in absence of any direct evidence against him. This Court materially observed the following vide para 10 to 12 of the said judgment, which reads as under : 10. It is well settled law that extending of a legal opinion for granting loan has become an integral component of an advocate's work in banking sector. This Court materially observed the following vide para 10 to 12 of the said judgment, which reads as under : 10. It is well settled law that extending of a legal opinion for granting loan has become an integral component of an advocate's work in banking sector. A lawyer, on his part, has a responsibility to act to the best of his knowledge and skills and to exhibit an unending loyalty to the interest of his clients. He has to exercise his knowledge in a manner that would advance the interest of his clients. However, while acting so the advocate does not assure to his client that the opinion so rendered by him is flawless and must in all possibility act to his gains. Just like in any other profession, the only assurance which can be given and may even be implied from an advocate so acting in his professional capacity is that he possesses the requisite skills in his field of practice and while undertaking the performance of task entrusted to him, he would exercise his skills with reasonable competence. The only liability that may be imputed on an advocate while so acting in his professional capacity is that of negligence in application of legal skills or due exercise of such skills. 11. The Supreme Court in K. Narayana Rao 's case (supra) considered the question as to whether a legal professional can be rendered criminally liable for negligence or improper legal advise. Considering the factual situation, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the Bank and observed as under: - “27. In the banking sector in particular, rendering of legal opinion for granting of loans has become an important component of an advocate’s work. In the law of negligence, professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects and others are included in the category of persons professing some special skills. A lawyer does not tell his client that he shall win the case in all circumstances. Likewise a physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. A lawyer does not tell his client that he shall win the case in all circumstances. Likewise a physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practising and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him, he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. This is what the person approaching the professional can expect. Judged by this standard, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings, viz., either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. 28. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 this Court laid down the standard to be applied for judging. To determine whether the person charged has been negligent or not, he has to be judged like an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch which he practices. 29. In Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 556 this Court held that: (SCC p. 562, para 8) “8. There is a world of difference between the giving of improper legal advice and the giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in the exercise of his profession does not amount to professional misconduct.” 30. Therefore, the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the Bank. In the given case, there is no evidence to prove that A-6 was abetting or aiding the original conspirators. 31. However, it is beyond doubt that a lawyer owes an “unremitting loyalty” to the interests of the client and it is the lawyer’s responsibility to act in a manner that would best advance the interest of the client. In the given case, there is no evidence to prove that A-6 was abetting or aiding the original conspirators. 31. However, it is beyond doubt that a lawyer owes an “unremitting loyalty” to the interests of the client and it is the lawyer’s responsibility to act in a manner that would best advance the interest of the client. Merely because his opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with the criminal prosecution, particularly, in the absence of tangible evidence that he associated with other conspirators. At the most, he may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 420 and 109 IPC along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them. It is further made clear that if there is a link or evidence to connect him with the other conspirators for causing loss to the institution, undoubtedly, the prosecuting authorities are entitled to proceed under criminal prosecution. Such tangible materials are lacking in the case of the respondent herein. 32. In the light of the above discussion and after analysing all the materials, we are satisfied that there is no prima facie case for proceeding in respect of the charges alleged insofar as respondent herein is concerned. We agree with the conclusion of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings and reject the stand taken by CBI.” 12. The principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Narayana Rao's case (supra) was followed with approval by the Supreme Court subsequently in the matter of Surendra Nath Pandey and others v. State of Bihar and others, MANU/SC/1216/2015 by observing as under: - “4. The High Court by the impugned judgment has refused to quash the First Information Report (FIR) on the ground that the same prima facie discloses commission of the offences alleged against the Appellants who are the panel advocates of the Bank. A reading of the FIR would go to show that the allegations levelled against the Appellants is that as panel advocates they had furnished false Search Report/NEC/legal opinion with regard to the properties/land documents in order to cheat the Bank and to facilitate obtaining of loan by the concerned persons. On investigation of the FIR, a charge-sheet has been submitted, a copy of which is enclosed to the present Appeal Paper Book. On investigation of the FIR, a charge-sheet has been submitted, a copy of which is enclosed to the present Appeal Paper Book. A reading of the charge-sheet does not refer to any specific finding of investigation. 5. Taking into account the contents of the FIR, we are left with the impression that the said allegations are bald and omnibus and do not make any specific reference to the role of the Appellants in any alleged conspiracy. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. Narayana Rao [ (2012) 9 SCC 512 ] to which one of us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.) was a party, it has been held by this Court that a criminal prosecution on the basis of such bald and omnibus statement/allegations against the panel advocates' of the Bank ought not to be allowed to proceed as the same constitute an abuse of the process of the Court and such prosecution may in all likelihood be abortive and futile. … 6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. Narayana Rao (supra), we are of the view that the High Court was plainly wrong in refusing to interdict the proceedings against the Appellants. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and quash the proceedings in G.R. No. 710 of 206 arising out of Agiaon (G) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2006 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara insofar as the two Appellants Surendra Nath Pandey and Suresh Prasad are concerned.” 9. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid legal propositions, it appears that there is no material available on record to show that the present petitioner in any manner contacted the borrower or gained anything in an illegal manner and therefore, the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence is completely missing with regard to the petitioner, who has given an opinion while discharging his professional duties. In the Search Report, the petitioner has also mentioned the fact that the documents in original have to be obtained for creation of valid registered mortgage by deposit of title deeds and the persons should be present personally for the same. Hence, there is no malafide intention or mens rea as has been alleged in the charge sheet. In the Search Report, the petitioner has also mentioned the fact that the documents in original have to be obtained for creation of valid registered mortgage by deposit of title deeds and the persons should be present personally for the same. Hence, there is no malafide intention or mens rea as has been alleged in the charge sheet. Further, the complainant - Branch Manager has also issued a letter to the concerned SHO to not to pursue any criminal action against the petitioner on the basis of the Search Report. 10. For the foregoing, this Court is of the considered view that the entire charge-sheet as framed and filed against the petitioner deserves to be quashed following the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, in which, it has been held that in a case, where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the same would be fit for quashment of criminal proceeding. 11. Accordingly, prosecution of the petitioner pursuant to Crime No.300/2012, registered at Police Station Baikunthpur for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the IPC, pending in the Court of the CJM, Baikunthpur in Criminal Case No. 221/2014, is hereby quashed However, the trial against the remaining accused persons shall continue. 12. It is made clear that what has been expressed herein is only for disposing of the case qua the petitioner and has nothing to do with the allegations levelled and that are being tried against the other accused persons. The trial Court would decide the trial against the other accused persons without being influenced by any of the observations made herein-above. 13.The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.