IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.20864 of 2025 C.Ramesh S/o.K.Chakkarapani ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer Central Bureau of Investigation/ACB, 3rd Floor, Shastri Bhavan, No. 26, Haddous Road, Chennai- 600 006.

2. Nirmal Patel Regional Head and Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Chennai Metro Region, Chennai- 600 018.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS r/w 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in connection with FIR No. RCO3222025A0013 dated 17.06.2025 for the offences U/s. 120(b), 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) R/w 13(1)(a)

of Prevention of Corruption Act and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Paarthiban For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor (CBI Cases) - R1 ORDER The petitioner / A5 in F.I.R.No.RCO322025A0013 dated 17.06.2025 had filed the present quash petition.

2.The case as per the complaint is that the Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda had lodged a complaint stating that M/s.Monica Co. Products, a partnership firm was established in the year 2020 by its partners K.Pavalabalau (A1) and G.Palanivel. One Radha joined as a new partner in the firm, after resignation of G.Palanivel, . The partnership firm engaged in the business of processing and manufacturing of coconut based products, approached Bank of Baroda, Purasawalkam Branch for cash credit facility of Rs.7.60 Crores which was sanctioned on 29.09.2021. The partnership firm mortgaged 23 vacant plots situated at Adhanoor Village and Orathoor Village as collateral. It was found that M/s.Monica Co. Products, the partnership firm submitted fabricated / fake title deeds and layouts of all the 23 properties which are offered as security against the cash credit facility sanctioned by the Bank. The petitioner is an empanel advocate of Bank of Baroda, who in collusion with Malaivel Sugumaran, an empanelled valuer, given positive opinion favouring M/s.Monica Co. Products Ltd. Later found to be not correct. On the complaint, a case has been registered.

3.The admitted case of the complaint is that the petitioner is a panel lawyer of Bank of Baroda and based on the document submitted to him, he verified the title of the document and gave his opinion. The panel lawyer can give opinion without asking for any clarification, unless prima facie materials found in the documents doubtful. Then he can clarify with the bank officials and customers.

4.In this case, the petitioner gave his opinion based on the documents submitted. On the face of it, the forgery involved is not apparent and further the opinion of the advocate is one of the factors for the bank officials to consider and process the loan application. There are specific guidelines and procedures given to the loan officers, who are to visit the place of property, scrutinize the valuer report, viability of the project and after physical verification and satisfaction about the viability of the project, the legal opinion of the panel advocate will be taken as an added factor and it is not that on the sole basis of legal opinion the loan will be granted. As a panel advocate, he had only given his opinion and collected his legal fee. The petitioner has no other personal interest. If such proceedings are continued, then it would scuttle the freedom of legal profession and for every case the legal practitioners would be found fault with and penalised and a professional to suffer the ignominy of a criminal case.

5.In support of his contention, the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad V.

K.Narayana Rao [2012 (9) SCC (512)], Surendranath Pandey and another V. State of Bihar and another [2020 (18) SCC (730)] and a decision rendered by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3653 of 2019 and Crl.O.P.No.19420 of 2023 Wherein the