C.S.Chakravathy vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1794 Tel

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

          CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11409 of 2022


ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.5 in

C.C.No.12435 of 2020 on the file of XII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for the offences

under Sections 419 420, 406, 465, 467, 466 and 471 IPC

r/w 34 IPC.

2. The 2nd respondent, who is the Assistant General

Manager of State Bank of India filed a complaint with the

Central Crime Station, Hyderabad alleging that A4

approached the bank for housing loan of Rs.55.00 lakhs

and submitted documents showing his gross salary as

Rs.80,618/- and other documents were also submitted.

After processing the loan application, bank sanctioned

housing loan of Rs.53,02,716/-. Banker's cheque was

issued for Rs.51,92,700/- in favour of the owner of the

house.

3. The said sanctioned loan amount was transferred to

accounts of different persons who are examined as

L.W.16/Raja Srinivasa Kumar, L.W.22/G.Surya Babu and

L.W.23/Smt.Vanga Kanakalakshmi. For not paying the

EMIs, the Bank again verified the loan documents and

sent for supplementary legal opinion. It was found that the

documents furnished at the time of application for loan,

which are pay slips and other documents were fabricated.

It was further found that the names of the borrower and

vendor were not matching when the certified copy of the

document No.6347 of 2018 was checked. On verification,

it was found that A4 fabricated the salary slips and also

agreement of sale showing that an amount of Rs.13.00

lakhs was paid to A1.

4. The role attributed to this petitioner is that this

petitioner who is an Advocate has given his legal opinion

without proper verification of the original documents and

link documents of the property.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner is an Advocate and except stating that he

has given his legal opinion without proper verification,

there is no other allegation in the charge sheet. He relied

on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v.

K.Narayana Rao [2012 CRI.L.J.4610]. In the said

judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an

Advocate who gives his opinion cannot be mulcted with

criminal liability unless there is tangible evidence that he

was associated with the other conspirators to defraud the

bank.

6. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the

respondents that the opinion of the petitioner led to grant

of loan and consequently loss to the Bank to an extent of

more than Rs.50.00 lakhs. The case is circumstantial in

nature and the trial Court has to conduct trial to ascertain

complicity or otherwise of the petitioner. Accordingly,

prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. All the relevant documents have been seized during

the course of investigation. The said documents include

the loan application and all other documents filed by A4,

filed along with the loan application. The report of

investigation of title of immovable property dated

15.09.2018 issued by this petitioner is also filed.

8. The investigation does not disclose that any of the

accused had met this petitioner at any point of time.

Admittedly, the documents were provided by the Bank for

the purpose of investigation of title in respect of the

property in the Sub-Registrar's office. On the basis of

inspection, the petitioner had given his opinion. During

the course of investigation, it was found that A1 has

transferred amount to several others but there is no

evidence which is collected to state that any amount was

passed on to this petitioner. None of the witnesses state

that at any point of time any of the accused had met the

petitioner herein.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of

Investigation, Hyderabad v. K.Narayana Rao's case (supra)

held that lawyer or any professional cannot guarantee the

results of his professional help. At most, the petitioner

may be liable for negligence or professional misconduct

but cannot be charged for an offence of cheating or

fabrication of documents or criminal misappropriation. It

is not as though, the opinion of the petitioner made basis

to grant loan. The name of the petitioner is not mentioned

in the complaint. Even according to the documents filed,

the valuation report submitted by the valuer is not arrayed

as an accused. The petitioner had verified the documents

available with the Registrar's office. Except stating that the

petitioner has given legal opinion, it is not the case that

any false statements were deliberately made by this

petitioner in his report. According to the prosecution,

certain documents were fabricated but according to

investigation, the petitioner has nothing to do with any

such fabrication of documents.

10. None of the ingredients of penal Sections either

Section 420 or 406 of IPC are made out against this

petitioner.

11. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner

in C.C.No.12435 of 2020 on the file of XII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby

quashed.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 25.04.2023.

kvs