Prima facie case in conspiracy allegations requires cogent material; mere legal opinion did not justify prosecution.

A panel advocate who gave a legal opinion on housing-loan documents was alleged to be part of a conspiracy in fraudulent loan transactions. The SC reiterated that, at the stage of quashing or framing charge, the record must disclose a prima facie case or strong suspicion, but in a conspiracy case there must still be cogent material showing agreement or active participation in the illegal plan. Mere professional involvement, absence of the advocate's name in the FIR, and a disputed legal opinion were insufficient without tangible evidence of participation. No prima facie case was made out, and the quashing of the criminal proceedings was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the respondent, a panel advocate who had given legal opinion on housing-loan documents, disclosed a prima facie case of conspiracy or abetment so as to justify prosecution, and whether the High Court was right in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The material showed only that the respondent had rendered a legal opinion after perusing the documents supplied by the bank. His name was not mentioned in the FIR, and the charge-sheet did not disclose any direct material showing an agreement or active participation with the principal accused in the alleged fraudulent loan transactions. The governing test at the stage of quashing or framing of charge is whether the record discloses a prima facie case or strong suspicion, not whether the accused is likely to be convicted after a full trial. In a conspiracy case, an agreement to commit an illegal act must be shown by cogent material, and mere suspicion, professional opinion, or an allegedly wrong legal opinion does not by itself establish criminal liability unless there is tangible evidence of participation in the fraudulent plan.

Conclusion: No prima facie case was made out against the respondent. The quashing of the criminal proceedings was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

---