Allowed

Ramachandra Achaar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Sept 2024CRLP/3140/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against a panel advocate. The court held that since witness statements did not disclose materials to prove the advocate conspired or aided the fraud, the case was fit for quashing to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. 219/2023 are quashed.

Ramachandra Achaar Vs State Represented by Inspector… — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVART

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3140 OF 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Ramachandra Achaar, S/o Late Gopalacharya, Aged 75 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o No 21/A, 3rd Cross, 3rd Phase, 6th Block, 3rd Stage, Banasankari, Bangalore 560085

¶7

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.7

¶8

AND

¶9

The State Represented By Inspector of Police, CBI - EOB, Chennai, Rep. by the Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) High Court of AP, at Amaravathi

¶10

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Charge sheet in CC No 219 of 2023 on the file of the V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, at, Vijayawada, against the petitioner/A7 herein.

¶12

LA, NO: 1 OF 2023

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition

¶14

¶15

the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copy of Charge sheet in CC No 219 of 2023 on the file of^{theVAddl.JuniorCivil} Judge cum V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, at, Vijayawada, for the present.

¶16

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/A7 in CC No^{219of2023onthefile} of the V Addl. junior Civil Judge cum V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, at, Vijayawada, against the petitioner/A7 herein , pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V R MACHAVARAM, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

¶21

BVLNC.J Page 1 of 6

¶22

CRL.P.NO.3140OF 2023 DT: 19.09.2024

¶23

APHC010212882023

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶28

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3140/2023

¶29

Between:

¶30

Ramachandra Achaar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶31

AND

¶32

State Represented By Inspector Of ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Police

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶34

1.VR MACHAVARAM

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶36

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

BVLNC.J Page 2 of 6

¶39

CRL,P.No.3140 0F2023 DT: 19.09.2024

¶40

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶41

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3140 OF 2023

¶42

O R D E R:

¶43

Heard Sri V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for petitioner^and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent/Central^Bureau of Investigation, EOB, Chennai.

¶44

The Criminal Petition is filed U/s.482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings in C.C.219/2023 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada filed against the petitioner/Accused No.7.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an advocate; He was a Panel Advocate^{ofStateBankof} India; He only gave legal opinion basing on the documents submitted by the bank; The trial Court took cognizance for the offence^{undersections} 420, 471, 120-B r/w.34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter^referredto as ‘I.P.C.’) against the petitioner and others; But the charge sheet does not disclose any allegations against the petitioner^{forthesaidoffence;} There is no material to rope the petitioner/A-7 with^{theoffenceU/s.120-B} IPC or 34 IPC.

¶46

BVLNC.J Page 3 of 6

¶47

CRL.P.NO.3140OF2023 DT: 19.09.2024

¶48

¶49

He would further argue that a Panel Advocate, who gave legal opinion about the title of the property, basing on the documents submitted by the bank, cannot be prosecuted for an offence under sections 430, 471, 120-B or 34 I.P.C.

¶50

In support of his arguments, he relied upon a judgment^ofHon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K.Narayana Rao\ wherein it was held that "absence^ofevidenceof abetting or aiding of conspiracy to defraud bank, an advocate, who gave legal opinion cannot be charged for conspiracy to defraud bank along with other conspirators”.

¶51

Per contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of^Indiawould submit that as per charge sheet, the petitioner, as^{aPanelAdvocateof} State Bank of India gave opinion basing on the documents provided by the bank; The material collected by the respondent/investigation Agency, prima facie would reveal that he conspired with other conspirators to defraud the bank and therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A-7.

¶52

^ 2012 (9)see 512

¶53

¶54

CRLP.No.3140 OF 2023 DT: 19.09.2024

¶55

BVLNC.J / Page 4 of 6

¶56

; 1

¶57

;

¶58

There is no dispute that the petitioner was a Panel^Advocateof State Bank of India, and he gave legal opinion with reference to the impugned loan transaction, basing on the documents provided by^the bank.

¶59

The Respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation^{contendsthatthe} statements of witnesses recorded during investigation^{woulddisclose} that the petitioner conspired with other conspirators^{todefraudthebank.} The respondent in reply affidavit mainly relied upon^{thestatementsof} L.W-10, L.W-11 and L.W-12 to rope the petitioner as^{accusedforthe} offence of conspiracy.

¶60

Perusal of statements of L.W-10, L.W-11 and L.W-12^does not disclose anything against the petitioner/A-7 Panel^{Advocatetoattractthe} offence LI/S.120-B I.P.C. Therefore, in the absence of prima facie material to prove that the petitioner/A-7 was abetting or aiding the original conspirators, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence of conspiracy along with other conspirators, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K.Narayana Rao.

¶61

BVLNC.J Page 5 of 6

¶62

CRL.P.NO.3140OF2023 DT: 19.09.2024

¶63

In the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in C.C.219/2023 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, filed against the petitioner/Accused No.7, to prevent abuse of process.

¶64

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/A-7 in C.C.219/2023 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, filed against the petitioner/Accused No.7 are quashed.

¶65

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶66

closed.

¶67

¶68

Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Vijayawada.

¶73

The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Gagan Vihar, Hyderabad.

¶74

One CC to SRI. V. R. MACHAVARAM, Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

Two CCS to THE DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

Three C.D.Copies nm

¶77

HIGH COURT DATED: 19/09/2024

¶78

ORDER

¶79

CRLP.No.3140 of 2023

¶80

^ 2 9 NOV 2029 |
^ ^ Current Section ^

¶81

THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

Ramachandra Achaar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandra Achaar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Priyanka Vs State of Ap

Kalluri Rajasekhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sk Silar Vs the State of Ap

N Ch Babu Vs the State of Ap

Konda Bhimalingeswara Rao at Bhima Vs the State of Ap

Kanchamreddy Adinarayana Reddy Vs the State of Ap