IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ilesh J. Vora, J.
Ajay Rumendra Mehta – Applicant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 2936 of 2022 With R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 19412 of 2022
Decided On : 29-01-2024
Criminal Conspiracy - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code, Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1D) - The judgment discusses the allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and criminal misconduct by public servant against the applicants. The court analyzed the role of the applicants as practicing advocates and their issuance of title investigation reports for properties mortgaged as collateral security. The court found that the allegations against the applicants did not constitute any offence or make out a case for trial, and therefore, quashed the criminal proceedings against them.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, practicing lawyers, were accused of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and criminal misconduct by public servant in connection with cash credit facilities sanctioned by a bank. The allegations were based on the issuance of title investigation reports for properties mortgaged as collateral security.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the applicants did not constitute any offence or make out a case for trial. It concluded that the continuation of the proceedings against the applicants would amount to an abuse of process of law and Court, and therefore, quashed the criminal proceedings against them.
Issues: The issues involved the role of the applicants as practicing advocates, the issuance of title investigation reports, and the allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and criminal misconduct by public servant.
Ratio Decidendi: The 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. It found that the allegations against the applicants did not establish their active participation in the alleged conspiracy to defraud the bank.
Final Decision: The applications were allowed, and the FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed qua the present applicants.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of rule for the respective respondents.
2. As common issue raised in present applications and facts are also common, as a result, both the applications were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. This Court has heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anshin Desai assisted by Mr. Nandish Thackar, Mr. C.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 2–CBI and Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.
4. Both the applicants are practicing lawyers, doing their practice at Surat, Gujarat State and panel advocates for State Bank of India. In the year 2014, M/s. Gauri International Pvt. Ltd and its directors namely D.K. Nakrani & V.V. Balal had applied for cash credit facilities with the SBI Bank, branch at Surat. The cash credit facilities to the tune of Rs.150 crores were sanctioned after scrutinizing the financial data and other documents submitted by the borrower company. The then Branch Manager Mr. Omprakash Verma had undertaken the entire exercise for sanctioning the loan. The said cash credit limit was encashed and released in favour of borrower company. The borrower company is engaged in textile business and they were irregular in making the payments of cash credit and failed to pay the outstanding with interest. The bank inquired into the entire loan transaction and found that the company and its directors and others committed a fraud by submitting fabricated/fake documents, inflating value of immovable properties and the properties given as a collateral security is not identifiable and the funds have been diverted and was not having been utilized for the purpose for which they were sanctioned. In such circumstances, the authorized officer of the Bank had submitted private complaint to the respondent CBI, inter-alia, alleging that, the accused and officials of the bank in connivance with each other, committed the offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using a forged documents as genuine and criminal misconduct by public servant, abusing their official position. The FIR being RC0292018A0010 dated 29.06.2018 came to be registered with CBI/ACB Gandhinagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 120B, read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against 8 persons and other unknown persons.
Pursuant to the said FIR, the investigation concluded and chargesheet came to be filed against 23 accused including present applicants. In the said chargesheet, the applicants have been arraigned as accused nos. 21 and 22. The allegations made in the chargesheet against the applicants read as under:
"Investigation revealed that branch had obtained two Title Investigation Reports each of the aforementioned two immovable properties from Panel Advocate Shri Ajay R Mehta and Shri Chandrakant K. Soni. Investigation has revealed that the search was conducted by Panel Advocate Shri Ajay R. Mehta in Sub-Registrar Office, Mahuva on 14.03.2014 and Sub- Registrar Office, Palsana on 27.03.2014, Title Investigation Reports were submitted on 2503.2014 and 28.03.2014 respectively for both the properties.
…. Investigation has revealed that as per the Government records the property bearing Plot No. 04, R.S. 122/2 Mouje Bagumara & Plot No. 04, Block No. 223, Mouje Tarsadi is records as a whole bearing Plot No.
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab
Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra
The absence of tangible evidence to establish any connection or collusion between the petitioner and other co-accused persons for defrauding the bank led to the quashing of the proceeding against the....
The judgment emphasizes the need for 'grave suspicion' and tangible evidence to establish criminal conspiracy, and highlights the limited role of a lawyer in providing legal opinions.
A lawyer can be held criminally liable for providing false legal opinions if it is established that they knowingly participated in a fraudulent scheme, and the mere act of providing legal advice does....
The court held that mere negligence by an advocate in providing legal opinions does not constitute criminal conspiracy without evidence of active participation in the fraudulent scheme.
A lack of prima facie evidence for conspiracy negates the framing of criminal charges against a bank valuer who submitted inflated property valuations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.