(1.) The above Writ Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside by a writ of certoriari or any other writ the FIR no. 76 of 2013 dated 16.2.2013, registered with the Margao Town Police Station.
(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 28.07.2012, one Shri Sandip Naguesh Naik visited the office of the Petitioner who is an Advocate and informed him that he intended to purchase from Mrs. Estefania Alvares e Miranda, wife of late Pedro Miranda, Ms. Janet Miranda and others, a plot of land admeasuring 990 square metres which was part and parcel of the property known as "Molianchi Fili" surveyed under no. 4/1 of the Village Davorlim, Salcete, Taluka. It is the case of the Petitioner that he advised the said person to issue a public notice inviting objections from the General Public to the said proposed purchase and, accordingly, a public notice was issued by the Petitioners on behalf of said Sandip Naik on 03.08.2012 in the local newspapers 'The Navhind Times' and 'Gomantak', which were circulated on 07.08.2012. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that he did not receive any such objections towards the purchases but, however, the said person informed the Petitioner that he had dropped the idea of purchasing the said plot. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that he learnt in February, 2013, about the registration of the said FIR after reading reports in the local dailies. The Petitioner further came to know that he had been named as an accused for committing offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner thereafter learnt that the said complaint was lodged by the co-owner of plot 'F' which also forms part of the said property surveyed under no. 4/1. It is futher contended that one Manoj was attempting to dispose plot 'F' of the larger property surveyed under no. 4/1. It is further the case of the Petitioner that if the complaint which is dated 12.02.2013 is read as a whole, it clearly discloses that the Complainants are accusing that the accusations in the complaint are against the main accused Mr. Manoj Manikrao Oklekar and some others. It is also alleged therein that public notice was issued by the Complainant nos. 3 and 4 warning any person including Mr. Manoj from attempting to fraudulently dispose of the said plot. It is also contended that said Manoj had executed a false fraudulent Power of Attorney of the Complainants wherein their signatures and photographs have been forged. It is also mentioned in the complaint that said Sandip Naik, who was the client of the Petitioner had backed out from purchasing plot 'E' and that he had recovered whatever amount he had paid to the said Manoj. The only allegations as against the Petitioner are that he had not disclosed the name of the clients in the public notice where he had invited objections by way of publication in the news papers and, as such, had conspired with the other accused. It is further the case of the Petitioners that he is not involved in any offence and, consequently, the FIR lodged against the Petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) The Respondent-State have filed a lengthy reply disputing the claims put forward by the Petitioner.