Point of Law : Though evidence is circumstantial in nature, merely on basis of opinion given by this petitioner, on basis of verification in Sub-Registrar Office, Court is of the opinion that criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue against this petitioner.

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.9 in C.C.No.10380 of 2020 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 109 of IPC.

2. The 2nd respondent is the Chief Manager of Bank of Maharashtra. He filed a complaint stating that loan application was made by Gali Niranjan/A2 on behalf of A1 i.e., M/s.REX Contractors & Traders Private Limited for cash credit of Rs.180.00 lakhs which was sanctioned on 02.11.2012 from Khairatabad branch. An open plot admeasuring 1700 sq.yds in Sy.No.110, Maktha, Mehaboobpet village, Serilingampally which was owned by A2 was given as security. Loan was given to A1 and A2. However, the amounts were not being paid. The account was declared as NPA on 29.10.2013 and the Bank also initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act.

3. It is further stated that on enquiry, the Bank came to know that the sale deed which was deposited is non existent property and same was done with an intention to cheat the Bank. The documents from the Bank were collected during the course of investigation. During the course of investigation it was found that there are disputes regarding the property and also certain documents were fabricated by the accused A1 to A7 who created will deeds and A5 to A7 executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of A4. A4 to A7 planned and divided the property into two plots and sold one of the said plots for sale consideration of Rs.1.87 lakhs to A2. The said document was submitted before the Bank of Maharashtra. On the basis of the complaint filed by the bank, the police investigated the case and filed charge sheet. This petitioner who is an advocate was found complicit of colluding with A2 and furnishing false certification of the plot given as security by A2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an Advocate giving a legal opinion cannot be prosecuted criminally in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K.Narayana Rao, 2012 (Suppl.) ACC 308. On the basis of the documents produced by the Bank, the petitioner, who is appointed as a counsel for the Bank has certified that the property which was registered and in Sy.No.110 of Maktha, Mehaboobpet village was searched in the sub- registrar’s office and that there is a clear marketable title. Since the opinion is based on the documents provided, it cannot be said that this petitioner in any manner entered into criminal conspiracy with the other accused to cause loss to the Bank. Accordingly, petition has to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the role of this petitioner is clearly mentioned in the charge sheet that A2 approached A8 and this petitioner/A9 and submitted loan application and offered to give good percentage. For the said reason, A8 and this petitioner colluded with A2 and knowing that the property was not genuine certified that the property to be clear and marketable. On the basis of said opinion, A8 sanctioned loan for an amount of Rs.180.00 lakhs. After disbursal of the loan, A2 diverted the amount to his personal account and misappropriated. The bank has suffered loss on account of the acts of this petitioner also along with other accused as such the proceedings have to continue before the trial Court.

6. The role attributed to this petitioner, who is an Advocate is that he had given an opinion on the basis of the documents provided by the Bank. The certification by the counsel in his legal opinion is as follows:

“I have examined the original title deed Doct.No.12306 of 2012 dt.05-11-2012 relating to land admeasuring 2051 sq.yds in Sy.No.110 of Makta Mahaboobpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District and I have also taken search with the District Registrar, R.R.District for the last 29 years (Original fee receipt enclosed). I certify that Sri Gali Niranjan has an absolute, clear and marketable titl