Criminal prosecution of panel advocates requires concrete material of active participation, not mere allegations of wrong legal opinion.

Criminal proceedings against panel advocates cannot continue on bald and omnibus allegations alone; prosecution requires tangible material showing active participation or a clear conspiratorial link. Where the FIR and charge-sheet merely allege that legal opinions, search reports or encumbrance certificates were furnished to facilitate a loan, but disclose no concrete investigation finding or specific material connecting the advocates to the alleged conspiracy, continuation of the case amounts to abuse of process. On that basis, the proceedings against the advocates were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings against panel advocates should be quashed when the FIR contains only bald and omnibus allegations and no specific material showing their participation in the alleged conspiracy.

Analysis: The allegations against the appellants were that, as panel advocates, they furnished false search reports, no encumbrance certificates and legal opinions to facilitate a loan. The FIR and charge-sheet did not disclose any specific finding of investigation or any concrete material connecting them with the alleged conspiracy. The governing principle applied was that an advocate cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution merely because his opinion is alleged to be wrong or unacceptable; criminal liability arises only where there is tangible evidence of active participation or a proper link with other conspirators. In the absence of such material, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the appellants were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal prosecution against a professional adviser cannot continue on the basis of bald and omnibus accusations alone; there must be tangible material showing active participation or a clear conspiratorial link before criminal liability is fastened.

---