Allowed

V. Narsinga Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Mar 2023CRLP/586/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an advocate under Section 109 IPC for cheating a bank. The petitioner, appointed as counsel for the bank, certified title documents but did not verify physical boundaries. Quashing was based on the Supreme Court precedent that legal opinion alone, without tangible evidence of conspiracy or active participation, precludes criminal liability.

What did the court decide?

Quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 10380 of 2020.

V. Narsinga Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

V. Narsinga Rao, S/o late V. Manik Rao, Aged 61 years, Occ- Advocate, R/o H.No. 3-5-1 1 8/56, Hyderguda, near Attapur, Hyderabad.

¶7

NER/ACCUSED.9

¶8

¶9

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High court, Hyderabad.

¶10

.RESPONDENT NO.1

¶11

J. Manohar !ed!y, S/o J. Damodar Reddy, aged-S9 years, occu-Chief Manager of Bank of Maharastra, at Asset Recovery Eiranch, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT No.2/DEFACTO-COMpLAtNANT

¶13

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 c.c No.10380 ot 202o on the file of the learned Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶14

¶15

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 petitioner in c.c.No.10380 of 202o on the file of the leamed Xll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad pending disposal of the main quash proceedings.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.V. HANUMANTHA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and NONE APPEARED for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

i I I : I t i I ItI I

¶19

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.586 OF 2O2L

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.9 in C.C.No.1O380 of 2O2O on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 109 of IPC.

¶24

The 2"d respondent is the Chief Manager of Bank of Maharashtra. He filed a complaint stating that loan application was made by Gali Niranjan /A2 on behalf of A1 i.e., M/s.REX Contractors & Traders Private Limited for cash credit of Rs.180.00 lakhs which was sanctioned on o2.LL.2012 from Khairatabad branch. An open plot admeasuring LZoo sq.yds in Sy.No.1 10, MaktJra, Mehaboobpet village, Serilingampalry which was owned by A2 was given as security. loan was given to A1 and A2. However, the amounts were not being paid. The account was declared as NPA on 29.10.2013 and the Bank also initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act.

¶25

It is further stated that on enquiry, the Bank came to know that the sale deed urlrich was deposited is non existent

t ..4

i I I tI i

property and same was done with an intention to cheat the Bank. The documents from the Bank were corlected during the course of investigation. During the course of investigation it was found that there are disputes regarding the property and also certain documents were fabricated by the accused 41 to A7 who created will deeds and A5 to A7 executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of A4. ,{4 to A7 planned and divided the property into two plots and sold one of the said plots for sale consideration of Rs.1.87 lakhs to 42. The said document was submitted before the Bank of Maharashtra. on the basis of the complaint filed by the bank, the police investigated the case and filed charge sheet. This petitioner who is an advocate was found complicit of colluding with A2 and furnishing false certification of the plot given as security by 42.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an Advocate giving a legal opinion cannot be prosecuted criminally in view of the judgment of the Honble supreme court in the case of central Bureau of Investigation,

¶31

¶32

¶33

Hyderabad v. K.Narayana Raot. On the basis of the documents produced by the Bank, the petitioner, who is appointed as a counsel for the Bank has certifred that the propertSr which was registered and in sy.No.llo of Maktha, Mehaboobpet village was searched in the sub- registrar,s office and that there is a clear marketable title. Since the opinion is based on the documents provided, it cannot be said that this petitioner in any manner entered into criminal conspiracy with the other accused to cause loss to the Bank. Accordingly, petition has to be allowed.

¶34

on the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the role of this petitioner is clearly mentioned in the charge sheet that A2 approached Ag and this petitione r / a9 and. submitted loan application and offered to give good percentage. For the said reason, Ag and this petitioner colluded with A2 and, knowing that the propert5r was not genuine certified that the property to be clear and marketable. on the basis of said opinion, Ag sanctioned loan

¶35

'Zorz lSuppt.) ACC 308

¶36

¶37

for an amount of Rs.180.00 lakhs. After disbursal of the loan, A2 diverted the amount to his personal account and misappropriated. The bank has suffered loss on account of the acts of this petitioner also along with other accused. as such the proceedings have to continue before the trial court.

¶38

The role attributed to this petitioner, who is an Advocate is that he had given an opinion on the basis of the documents provided by the Bank. The certification by the counsel in his legal opinion is as follows:

¶39

"l have examined the original title deed Doct.No.12306 of 2012 dt.05-Il-2O12 relating to land admeasuring 2051 sq.yds in Sy.No.l1O of Makta Mahaboobpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District and I have also taken search with the District Registrar, R.R.District for the last 29 years (Original fee receipt enclosed). I certify that Sri Gali Niranjan has an absolute, clear and marketable title over the property shown above in Para-S and that by deposit of afore said title deed by mortgagor/borrower a valid mortgage would be created on behalf of borrower in the manner required by law, it will satisfy the requirements of creation of Equitable Mortgage."

¶40

The Bank while lodging the complaint mentioned that on enquiry, they came to know that the borrowers and guarantors defrauded the Bank by depositing a sale deed of non existent property for the purpose of cheating the Bank. However, flo

¶41

¶42

role was attributed to this petitioner in the complaint made nor did the preliminary enquiry by the Bank before lodging the complaint reveal the role of this petitioner.

¶43

The police, having filed charge sheet mentioned that an offence under Section 109 of Ipc is made out against this petitioner. However, against A1 errrd, A2, the charges are under sections 406,4o9,42o r/w 34 of Ipc, charges against A5 and 46 are sections 406,42o,46s,46g,47r r/w 34 of Ipc and against bank official A8, offence under section 406, 4og , 42Or /w 109 of IpC.

¶44

9 - The borrowers and guarantors approached the Bank for the purpose of taking loan and provided the documents for the purpose of security. The role of this petitioner is after the other accused had approached the Bank, the Bank had provided the documents for the purpose of certification and verification. Having verified the said d.ocuments in the District Registrar, R.R.District for a period of 29 years certified that Gali Niranjan has absolute clear and marketable title over the property

¶45

¶46

which is 17oo sq.yds out of 37sr sq.yds in sy.No.l 10, Mahaboobpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal.

¶47

It is not in dispute that the document is registered document and originar fee receipt which the petitioner had searched in the District Registrar was also enclosed along with the legal opinion. It is not the case of the police that this petitioner had verified the physical boundaries of the land by visiting the said propertJr. No where it is mentioned in the legal opinion that this petitioner had verified the land physically and later certified. The only documents which were provided by the Bank were verified with the sub-Registrar office.

¶48

To attract an offence under section 1o9 of Ipc, it has to be shown that the accused has instigated the other accused. or engaged with them in pursuance of criminal conspiracy for doing an illegal act. Admittedly the role attributed to this petitioner is only after the bank provided relevant documents for the purpose of verification. There is no allegation of any transfer of amounts to this petitioner. In the said circumstances, on the basis of an assumption that this

¶49

¶50

¶51

petitioner had intentionally aided or abetted the other accused to obtain loan, the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be continued.

¶52

\ \

¶53

L2. The Hon'ble Supreme court in central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K.Narayana Rao (surpaf held that merely because opinion of a counsel or 1av0rer is not acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with criminal liability particularly in the absence of any tangible evidence that he is associated with the other conspirators. There are no witnesses to speak about this petitioner being in any manner involved with the other accused. Though the evidence is circumstantial in nature, merely on the basis of opinion given by this petitioner, on the basis of verilication in the sub-Registrar office, this court is of the opinion that criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue against this petitioner.

¶54

f (

¶55

In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner/A9 in c.c.No.lo38o of 2o2o on the file of xII Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

-*.-.1.

r..

14' Accordingly, the criminal petition is alrowed.

¶60

consequently, miscelraneous petitions, if ory, sharl stand disposed.

¶61

sD/- P.GOWR! SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGIS,TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One Fair Copy to the Hon'bte Sri Justice K.SURENDER (For His Lordships Kind perusat)

¶66

¶67

¶68

The Xll Addl. chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampaily, Hyderabad. 2. Nine LR copies 3. The Under secretary, [Vlinistry of Law & Justice Union of lndia, New Delhi. 4. The secretary, Telangana High court Advocates Association, High court Premises, Hyderabad.

¶69

The Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, Police Station, Hyderabad District.

¶70

6 One CC to SRI M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO, Advocate tOpUCI Two CCs to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for th6 State of -

¶71

Telan_gana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8 Two CD Copies

PSK.

i ,

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/03/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.586 of 2021

tHE SIq 14:
(
+
O
AP Il 2[?3
[3
.e.

¶81

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @)c,n.'o ffit&o

V. Narsinga Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Narsinga Rao v. The State of Telangana

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

Mohammed Farooq Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. P. Vijaya Vs The State of Telangana and another

Nageswar Rao.K Vs State of Telangana and another

Smt. Ameena Unnisa,and 8 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Guntakanti Venkatarameshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

S.Nagaraju Gupta Vs The State of Telangana