(Special Original Jurisdiction)

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.7, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No.4434 of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and the Designated Court for CID Cases at Visakhapatnam.

Since Respondent No.2 is a pro forma party, there is no issuance of notice to Respondent No.2 and no hearing of Respondent No.2.

Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the investigation reveals that, on 23.02.2019, the Bank forwarded the title deeds to the petitioner (Accused No.7), who is a Panel Advocate, for a title investigation report. The petitioner submitted the title investigation report along with ECS to the branch on 28.02.2019, certifying that the property was genuine and that a valid mortgage could be created. Since respondent No.2 is a pro forma party, there is no necessity to issue notice to or hear respondent No.2.

It is further contended that the said Panel Advocate, namely Kuppili Srinivasa Rao (Accused No.7), did not adhere to the guidelines prescribed in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the Bank while submitting the title investigation report. It is alleged that he neither verified the original title deeds nor obtained certified copies of the same from the concerned Sub-Registrar Offices. Further, he failed to submit a copy of Will Deed No.295 of 1998 from SRO, Tanuku, to the appropriate Sub-Registrar Office for verification of its authenticity.

It is also stated that, as per the investigation, the root of title for the execution of the partition deeds traces back to the said Will Deed No.295 of 1998 from SRO, Tanuku. Therefore, the authenticity of the said document ought to have been verified at the Registrar’s Office in accordance with the SOP guidelines. However, the petitioner neither visited the concerned Sub-Registrar Offices to verify the genuineness of the Will nor conducted a physical search of the property at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pidimigoyya Village.

Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is a panel advocate for Respondent No.2/Bank. The allegation against him is that he did not follow the Standard Operating Procedure while rendering his legal opinion, based on which Respondent No.2/Bank extended a loan to the other accused.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, at the most, the Petitioner, being a panel advocate of the Bank, may be said to have committed professional misconduct, but no criminal offence is made out. It is contended that there is no allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.7 that he conspired with the other accused in creating or fabricating false documents for the purpose of obtaining the loan.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the Petitioner/Accused No.7 failed to follow the Standard Operating Procedure, which he was duty-bound to adhere to. It is submitted that he neither verified the title deeds nor obtained certified copies of the same from the concerned Sub-Registrar Offices. Further, he failed to submit a photocopy of Will Deed No.295 of 1998 from SRO, Tanuku, to the appropriate Sub-Registrar for verification of its authenticity.

It is further contended that the investigation reveals that the Petitioner ought to have verified the authenticity of the said Will with the Registrar’s Office by strictly following the SOP guidelines. Being a panel advocate, the Petitioner was expected to act with due diligence and in the best interests of his client. However, he failed in discharging his professional responsibilities. Therefore, a case has been registered against the Petitioner as well, and it is urged that the present petition be dismissed.

Heard t