IMPORTANT POINT
An advocate cannot be held criminally liable for giving his legal opinion without tangible evidence of his association with other conspirators to defraud the bank.

JUDGMENT

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 Ss. 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, 618.00 and other documents were also submitted. After processing the loan application, bank sanctioned housing loan of Rs.53, 02, 716.00. Banker's cheque was issued for Rs.51, 92, 700.00 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 dtd. 15/9/2018 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 o