The main legal point established is that the petitioner's report did not demonstrate any dishonesty or intention to deceive the bank, and therefore, the inclusion of the petitioner as an accused was deemed a case of malicious prosecution.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records in C.C.No.530 of 2022, pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner herein arrayed as the 5th accused in C.C.No.530 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, has filed a petition to quash the case pending against him on the ground that he being a Professional Chartered Accountant won several accolade in the profession, but been maliciously prosecuted in the said case as if he conspired with the other accused to cheat the State Bank of India and other consortium of banks to the tune of Rs.494 crores between the year 2009 and 2016 and thereby, liable to be punished under Section 420 r/w 120 B of IPC.

2. The petitioner claims that he being a renowned Chartered Accountant of the firm M/s Guru and Jana was engaged by the Board of Directors of M/s Nathella Sampath Jewelry Private Limited vide, letter dated 09.06.2017 to conduct audit of the finance status of the company for the past 4 to 5 years extent the same upto 30.06.2017 and assess the apparent health of the group entities. Further, to recommend corrective measures that may be adopted by the management to remedy the situation, initially to salvage the situation and gradually stabilize and put the operations back on rails. The petitioner with his team of auditors after making a visit to the corporate office of M/s Nathella Sampath Jewelry Private Limited and with the information provided by the company which engaged him, gave a report on 05.08.2017 to the Board of Directors of M/s Nathella Sampath Jewelry Private Limited. The report consists of recommendations and options. The Manager of State Bank of India was also furnished with a copy of the report along with his covering letter dated 05.08.2017.

3. The report and the covering letter according to the prosecution are the only incriminating material to charge the petitioner. Except making inspection and submitting the stock audit report, in the year 2017, he had no role either at the time of sanctioning the loan to M/s Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited in the year 2009 and thereafter for the company's default in payment of loan which was declared as NPA in the year 2016. In the Final Report, the petitioner being inducted as an accused for the substantive offence under Section 420 IPC and under Section 120B IPC for conspiracy with the co-accused. The Final Report however has given a clean chit to the FIR named accused Sohun C.J. Parmar (A5), the Statutory Auditor for the defaulting company during the disputed period.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued at length submitting that the audit report submitted by the petitioner herein was not taken into consideration by the Bank. His report has been rejected by the State Bank of India stating specifically that he was not the Auditor appointed by the Bank and his report will not be taken into consideration for any purpose.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the State Bank of India sanctioned loan to M/s Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited in the year 2009 and continued the transaction with the company till 2016. The loans were sanctioned based on the audit report of Sohun C.J.Parmar (A5) the Statutory Auditor. The company defaulted and it was declared as NPA. Thereafter, the Directors of the company to salvage the company from bankruptcy sought professional advice of the petitioner and provided information about its assets and liability to render advice. Accordingly, the petitioner had visited the premise, inspected the accounts and given his opinion as a report. The said report was not considered by the Bank at any point of time. While so, the allegation that he conspired with the company Directors to cheat the State Bank of India and consortium of banks has no