HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.437 of 2024 on the file of I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nirmal, Nirmal District, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and

472 IPC.

2. Heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Setti Ravi Teja, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 has availed a house loan of Rs.71,57,000/- from respondent No.2-State Bank of India, Nirmal Branch, by depositing the sale deeds and the link documents with the Bank on which the then Bank Manager, who is accused No.4 and the then Field Officer of the Bank caused enquiry and verified the documents. After approval of the Field Officer and the Branch Manager, the documents were forwarded to the Regional Manager for sanction. The Engineer-accused No.3 verified the documents and issued the house valuation papers without physically verifying the construction. The legal advisor- accused No.5 also verified the documents and issued legal opinion stating that the valid mortgage can be created by depositing the original title deeds. After obtaining the sanction order from the Regional Manager, the loan amount was availed by accused No.1 and since September 2015, he discontinued repayment of loan and became a defaulter. Thus, accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC. Accused No.2 died during the pendency of investigation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is accused No.5 and is a Panel Advocate of the SBI and he has issued the legal opinion based on the documents submitted to him, but he cannot ascertain the authenticity of the said documents and thus, he is no way concerned with the alleged offences and therefore, he cannot be roped into the said set of allegations. He further submitted that the cognizance order passed in CC No.437 of 2021 in this case is bereft of any reasons and for the said reason also the case needs to be quashed against the petitioner. He further submitted that no ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC get attracted against the petitioner and he has not created any forged document and hence, the allegations under Sections 468 and 471 IPC also do not get attracted. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be abuse of process of law and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 have created documents and the petitioner- accused No.5 has helped accused Nos.1 and 2 in getting the loan processed through the Bank and that he has also verified the documents and issued legal opinion stating that the valid mortgage can be created by depositing the original title deeds, but when it was cross-checked with the opinion of another legal advisor of the Bank, the fact came to light, and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The petitioner herein is a Panel Advocate of State Bank of India and he has issued legal opinion stating that he has verified the documents and a valid mortgage deed can be created by depositing the original title deeds. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no role to speak about the authenticity of the documents. But, while expressing the legal opinion, a duty is cast upon the Panel Advocate to look into the link documents and also the flow of title from the original owner of the land to the applicant. However, the allegations point out that the petitioner has helped accused Nos.1 and 2 in getting the loan processed. It is pertinent to note that when it was cross-checked with the opinion of anot