Common Order:

1. All these ten criminal petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order, though they arise out of different calendar cases based on one FIR, as the petitioner in all the cases is the same.

2. The ten Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.Nos.27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of 2022 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate (Non-PC) Court, CBI, Vijayawada registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 468 read with 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for brevity ‘the IPC’) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the PC Act’).

3. Accused No.1 was the Branch Manager of Indian Overseas Bank. He removed from service. In the course of the trial, after completion of the investigation, he died. Accused No.2 is the borrower. Accused No.3 is the present petitioner, who is a panel advocate for Indian Overseas Bank. Accused No.4 is the valuer. Accused No.5 is a private person.

4. Sri V. Sai Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. Narayan Rao (2012 9 SCC 512) , submits that the petitioner, being a panel lawyer for the Indian Overseas Bank, cannot be prosecuted merely on the ground that he rendered alleged false opinions. Even assuming the opinions rendered by the petitioner/accused to be fake orfalse, the bank officials had the option of proceeding against him for his purported negligence or professional misconduct, if any. There are no statements or material on record showing that the petitioner had conspired with the other accused in rendering such alleged false opinion.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner, arrayed as Accused No.3 in FIR No.RC 02(A)/2014-CBI on the file of the CBI, Visakhapatnam, stands implicated under Sections 120-B, 420 and 468 read with 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ sans any scintilla of direct inculpatory evidence or procedural sanctity. It is trite that the petitioner finds no mention in the nascent FIR, his impleadment as Accused No.3 emerging ex post facto during the investigative sojourn by Respondent No.1's functionaries, bereft of adherence to the sacrosanct mandates of statutory provisions, bespoke rules, and the inexorable due process of law enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. It is further submitted that perusal of the 2ndrespondent's report evinces a stark vacuum of imputations anent the petitioner vis-à-vis the alleged misappropriation of bank funds or the sanctioning of loans predicated on spurious documentation, rendering her arraignment a paragon of processual abuse and malafide vendetta. Even accepting the charge-sheet's narrativization in toto, the foundational ingredients of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of ‘the I.P.C.,’ viz., an agreement per se delicti coupled with overt acts in furtherance thereof, stand conspicuously absent, as no pecuniary aggrandizement or collusion with co-accused is attributable to the petitioner qua the issuance of a non-encumbrance certificate deemed infra dig by the bank and investigative finale alike. Mere conjectural negligence, if at all, in the discharge of his avocatory imprimatur cannot transmogrify into mens rea-laden culpability under Sections 420, 468, or 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ warranting invocation of the High Court's plenary jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to quash these proceedings as a manifest miscarriage of justice, consonant with the ratio in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335).

7. In summation, learned Counsel for the Petitioner implores to arrest the inexorable slide towards trial travesty, where civil negligence masquerades as criminal conspiracy, contravening the hallowed tenets of Bhajan Lalsupra and its progeny. The police's custodial remit, far from a license for untrammeled imputation, enjoins safeguarding the innocent from vexatious litigation, a duty breached perforce here. With allegations taken at their zenithal import, no offence cognizable under the impugned sections crystallizes against the Petitioner, rendering continuance of proceedings an affront to equity and an abuse of the process of Court, warranting invocation of inherent powers for plenary relief.It is urged that criminal petitions be allowed by quashing the proceedings pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Magistrate, Non- PC Court, CBI Cases, Vijayawada.

8. Per Contra, Sri M. Sravan Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, vehemently contends that the petitioner, without verifying the documents or the relevant revenue records, rendered a falsified opinion certifying that the documents produced by the borrower/Accused No.2 were genuine. It is submitted that there were no registered sale deeds and that the petitioner failed to verify the revenue records, namely the pattadar passbook, title deeds, and I-B Adangal. Had the petitioner verified these documents, he would not have rendered the false opinions, now under challenge.

9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, with profound deference, elucidates that FIR No.RC02(A)/2014, inscribed upon the CBI Visakhapatnam dossier consequent to the meticulously lodged complaint by J.Satyanarayana, Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, unveils a labyrinthine criminal conspiracy orchestrated by Yemmanuru Mohan Kumar, erstwhile Branch Manager of the Pedalavalapadu Branch, Prakasam District, spanning 16.10.2010 to 28.07.2012, wherein he, in nefarious collusion with middlemen Y.Mallikarjuna Rao, the late Dasari Sukendra Rao, and sundry borrowers, perpetrated a systematic defalcation upon the bank through the processing, sanctioning, and disbursal of 13 agricultural loans under the 10B Green Credit Yojana against spurious securities, 9 analogous loans to landless supplicants, and 10 further loans predicated on inflated valuations, besides 6 SME loans to phantasmagorical travel firms, in egregious violation of extant guidelines, culminating in a pecuniary hemorrhage of Rs. 623.05 Lakhs to the exchequer. Upon exhaustive investigation, the CBI tendered 10 charge-sheets, inter alia arraying Accused No.1/ Y.Mohan Kumar, Accused No.2/ Dasari Ravi, Accused No.3/ Shaik Abdul Gaffar (the Petitioner herein, an advocate), Accused No.4/ Kanigiri Yella Rao (valuer), and Accused No.5/ Dasari Ramulu, unmasking their conspiratorial compact to hoodwink the bank.

10. It is further submitted that in the instant lis pertaining to Accused No.2/Dasari Ravi, a landless agrarian toiler, who tendered counterfeit title deeds procured via the late D.Sukendra Rao, the Petitioner/Accused No.3 furnished a patently mendacious legal opinion dated 07.07.2012, affirming the borrower's title as "clear, absolute, and marketable," whilst feigning verification at the Sub-Registrar's Office, Podili, and certifying encumbrance-free status, thereby enabling the mortgage registration vide Document No. 2364/2012 and the sanction of Rs.20 Lakhs at 15.5% interest by Accused No.1, with Rs.14 Lakhs disbursed into Accused No.2's savings account, of which Rs.12 Lakhs were repaid by 17.05.2015, leaving Rs.2 Lakhs as irrecoverable loss. This orchestrated duplicity, corroborated by Tahsildar, Marripudi records revealing Pattadar Passbook No.390 as legitimately vested in MarripudiNarasimham for a mere 0.85 acres in S.No.516/4, contradicting Accused No.2's spurious claim to 11.26 acres in S.Nos.445/446, coupled with Accused No.4's collusive valuation at Rs.45 Lakhs post a sham inspection on 05.07.2012, indelibly implicates the petitioner in the conspiratorial chain under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 r/w 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ rendering his quashment plea untenable.

11. Repudiating the Petitioner's averments in Paragraph Nos.2 to 4 with unyielding certitude, the learned Special Public Prosecutor posits that the FIR, no encyclopedic tome as per settled jurisprudence in Bhajan Lalsuprafructified the petitioner's role during probing revelations, justly arraying him as Accused No.3 for serially furnishing 10 bogus legal opinions, including the instant one, wherein he culpably abstained from rudimentary title scrutiny, blithely endorsing fictitious Pattadar Passbooks 14-A/B (Patta No. 390, Sl.No.300089), Adangal, and 1-B extracts alien to Accused No.2, exposing the bank to fiduciary peril. The petitioner's iterated mendacity across nine kindred reports, encompassing loans toP.Kanakamma, Yanam Balaraju, Kale Chinna Malakondaiah, et al., as unmasked by Mandal Revenue Office ledgers confirming their landlessness, evinces not isolated inadvertence but a deliberate, systematized complicity "neck deep" in the conspiracy, perforce negativing any processual abuse. This volitional pattern, wherein the petitioner masqueraded due diligence by professing personal SRO forays and encumbrance verifications, constitutes the sine qua non for loan sanctions absent which the bank would have demurred, directly catalyzing the Rs.623.05 Lakhs depredation,ergo, the charge-sheet's circumstantial matrix, buttressed by LWs.4 to 6 and LD.No.9, suffices to repel quashment, aligning with the imperative in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate ((1998) 5 SCC 749) that plenary relief under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is circumscribed where prima facie offences disclose.

12. Confronting the petitioner's invocation of K. Narayana Raosuprain Paragraph Nos.5 to 9, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court's caveat, imputing advocatory liability solely upon active participatory fraud, stands inexorably fulfilled herein, for the petitioner's decennial cascade of falsities transcends negligence, embodying "active participation" in the conspiratorial blueprint with Accused No.1 to Accused No.5, as his opinions formed the linchpin for each illicit disbursal. Unlike Narayana Rao'ssuprasolitary lapse, the petitioner's repetitive perfidy, 10 opinions on sundry dates, each vitiated by identical forgeries, belies any bona fide error, screaming mens rea and collusion, rendering the negligence plea risible and the cited judgments inapposite, for facts defy superimposition as per CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd ((1996) 5 SCC 591) . The Petitioner's exposure of the bank to loss via unqualified endorsements of ineligible borrowers like the landless Accused No.2 underscores criminal recklessness, not professional misstep, fortifying the charge-sheet's gravamen and mandating trial to exhume the full conspiracy's contours.

13. In rejoinder to Paragraph Nos.10 to 15, the learned Special Public Prosecutor asseverates the petitioner's opinions as the proximate cause of sanction to ineligible supplicants, sans which the bank's vigilance would have interposed, directly engendering pecuniary detriment, the civil-criminal dichotomy invoked is a red herring, for Sections 420/120-B of ‘the I.P.C.,’ dishonest inducement is palpably etched in the petitioner's knowing certification of spurious titles, corroborated by revenue forensics and prospective witnesses. Reserved jurisprudential retorts, including in Surendra Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar ((2020) 18 SCC 730) shall amplify at hearing, but suffice it that oral/documentary evidence, Pattadar discrepancies, sham valuations, disbursal trails, irrefutably substantiates guilt, disentitling quashment and compelling dismissal to vindicate public interest against fiduciary perfidy.

14. It is further submits that the petitioner entertained a common intention and conspired with the other accused to deceive the bank by rendering a false legal opinions, as a result of which the bank suffered losses of Rs.20,00,000/- in C.C.No.28 of 2022, Rs.20,00,000/- in C.C.No.36 of 2022, Rs.17,80,000/- in C.C.No.25 of 2022, Rs.20,00,000/- in C.C.No.34 of 2022, Rs.20,00,000/- in C.C.No.33 of 2022, Rs.19,50,000/- in C.C.No.32 of 2022, Rs.20,00,000/- in C.C.No.31 of 2022, Rs.20,00,000/- in C.C.No.30 of 2022, Rs.17,25,000/- in C.C.No.29 of 2022, and Rs.20,00,000/- in C.C.No.27 of 2022.

15. It is submitted that the petitioner rendered false opinionson the basis of fake title deeds allegedly arranged by one late Dasari Sukendar Rao. On account of the dishonest and fraudulent acts of the petitioner, in conspiracy with the other accused, he rendered false legal opinions, and therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. If is submitted that, consequently, the criminal petitions liable to be dismissed.

16. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.

17. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

18. Now the point for consideration is:

                  “Whether the proceedings in C.C.Nos.27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of 2022on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate (Non-PC) Court, CBI, Vijayawada,areliable to be quashed?”

19. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in BhajanLalsuprawherein at paragraph Nos.102 & 103 it is held as under:

                  “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

                  (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

                  (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

                  (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

                  (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

                  (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

                  (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

                  (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

                  103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

20. Thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BhajanLalsupra held that in the backdrop of the interpretation of Chapter XIV of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and the principles laid down by theHon’ble Apex Court, the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Code may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. Such power can be invoked, illustratively, where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, barred by law, or where the criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide. However, this power must be exercised very sparingly and with great circumspection, without embarking upon an enquiry into the truth or reliability of the allegations, and only in the rarest of rare cases.

21. Further, inPradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947) the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para No.20 held as under:

                  “20... The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:—

                  (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?

                  (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

                  (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

                  (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

                  If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.”

22. So, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwanisupra held that while considering a prayer for quashing under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ the High Court must examine whether the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, whether it completely overrules the allegations in the complaint, and whether such material remains unrefuted or is incapable of being justifiably refuted by the prosecution. The Court must further assess whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would not serve the ends of justice. If all these conditions are satisfied, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash the criminal proceedings, thereby securing justice to the accused and preventing wastage of valuable judicial time when conviction is clearly improbable

23. The 2ndrespondent, the Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, lodged a report dated 30.01.2014 with the CBI, against the 1st respondent herein. Based on the said report, the CBI registered an FIR in RC No.02(A)/2014 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 468 read with 471 of ‘the IPC.,’ and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of ‘the PC Act’.

24. It is not out of place to mention that though a single complaint was lodged by the 2ndrespondent and one FIR was registered, inasmuch as there were several borrowers involved, but ten charge-sheets came to be laid against various accused, arraying the petitioner also as an accused in all the ten cases. After completion of investigations, charge-sheets were laid before the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam.

25. Subsequently, on the point of jurisdiction after establishment of a CBI Court in Vijayawada the cases were transferred to the CBI Court in Vijayawada. However, in view of the death of Accused No.1, who was the then Branch Manager, all the cases were transferred on 14.12.2015 to the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate (Non-PC) Court, CBI, Vijayawada, for trial and disposal, since the public servant allegedly involved in the cases had died and the offences under ‘the PC Act.,’ did not survive.

26. It is stated in C.C.No.28 the charge sheet that one Y. Mohan Kumar, while functioning as the Branch Manager at Pedalavapadu Village, Prakasam District, entered into a criminal conspiracy with D. Sukendar Rao, D. Ravi, D. Ramulu, K. Yellarao and Shaik Abdul Gaffar (the accused) to cheat the bank. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, D. Ravi, who is a landless agricultural labourer, applied for a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- and submitted fake title deeds arranged by D. Sukendar Rao. The petitioner, who was the panel lawyer for the bank, allegedly rendered a false legal opinion in respect of the documents submitted by D. Ravi, and K. Yellarao allegedly furnished a false valuation report relating to the agricultural land of D. Ravi.

27. It is stated in the chargesheet in C.C.No.28 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for CBI Cases, Vijayawada that the allegation in the chargesheet is that Accused No.1/ Yemmuru Mohan Kumar, while functioning as Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Pedalavalapadu Branch, Prakasam District, during the period 16.10.2010 to 28.07.2012, entered into a criminal conspiracy with Accused No.2/Dasari Ravi, Accused No.3/Abdul Gaffar Shaik (Advocate), Accused No.4/Kanigiri Yella Rao (Valuer) and Accused No.5/Dasari Ramulu, along with middlemen including late Sri Sukendra Rao, to cheat the Indian Overseas Bank. It is alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, Accused No.1 abused his official position and processed, sanctioned and disbursed several agricultural and MSME loans under the IOB Green Credit Yojana Scheme against fake, forged and inflated securities, including loans to borrowers who did not own agricultural land, loans based on false title deeds, fake legal opinions, and fabricated valuation reports. It is further alleged that mandatory pre-sanction and post- sanction formalities were deliberately not followed, and essential documents such as inspection reports, encumbrance certificates, income assessments, and proper valuation verifications were either not obtained or were falsified.

28. The allegation in the chargesheet is further that, in one specific instance, Accused No.2 Dasari Ravi, who is a landless agricultural laborer, applied for an agricultural loan of Rs.20 lakhs by submitting fake title deeds arranged through the conspirators, Accused No.3/Abdul Gaffar Shaik, (panel Advocate of the Bank) allegedly gave a false legal opinion, and Accused No.4/Sri Kanigiri Yella Rao allegedly issued a fake valuation certificate showing the property value at Rs.45 lakhs without actual inspection. It is also alleged that Accused No.1 dishonestly sanctioned and disbursed the loan without conducting required formalities, causing a wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused. Overall, the chargesheet alleges that due to such fraudulent processing, sanction and disbursement of multiple loans, the Indian Overseas Bank suffered a wrongful loss to the tune of approximately Rs.623.05 lakhs, thereby constituting offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of ‘the PC Act’.

29. The case was registered on the complaint of J. Satyanarayana, Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, alleging that Yemmnuru Mohan Kumar, while functioning as Branch Manager, IOB Pedalavalapadu Branch during 16.10.2010 to 28.07.2012, entered into a criminal conspiracy with middlemen and borrowers to cheat the bank. It was alleged that by abusing his position as a public servant, he processed, sanctioned, and disbursed agricultural loans under the IOB Green Credit Yojana against fake, forged, inflated, or non-existent securities, loans to borrowers without agricultural land, and SME loans to non-existent travel firms, in violation of banking guidelines, causing an alleged wrongful loss of Rs.623.05 lakhs. Investigation revealed that many accused named in the FIR were not charge-sheeted as their securities were genuine, loans were repaid, or they lacked knowledge of forged documents arranged by the middleman, and MSME vehicle loans were found eligible, properly utilized, and secured through hypothecation, with recovery action taken by the bank.

30. It is stated in,C.C.No.27,the charge sheet, that the charge sheet was ultimately filed against Y. Mohan Kumar (A-1), Yanam Balaraju (A-2), Advocate Shaik Abdul Gaffar, Advocate (A-3), andYekkanti Sree Latha (A-4) in respect of a specific agricultural loan of Rs.20 lakhs sanctioned to Yanam Balaraju, a landless agricultural labourer. Investigation established that fake Pattadar Pass Books, Adangal, 1-B extracts, and property certificates were used, supported by a false legal opinion issued by the advocate, and that mandatory pre-sanction and post-sanction formalities were not followed. Loan proceeds amounting to about Rs.19 lakhs were disbursed, withdrawn, and diverted, including payment of Rs.5 lakhs towards purchase of a flat by A-4, with no repayment made, resulting in wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding gain to the accused. Expert opinions confirmed genuine execution of loan documents by the borrower, forged land records, and the advocate’s signatures on the legal opinion. These acts constitute offencesunder Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of ‘the P.C.Act’.

31. It is stated in C.C.No.34,the charge sheet, thatthe case arises from a complaint by the Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, alleging that Y. Mohan Kumar, then Branch Manager of IOB, Pedalavalapadu (2010 to 2012), entered into a criminal conspiracy with middlemen and borrowers to cheat the bank by sanctioning and disbursing agricultural loans under the IOB Green Greda Yojana Scheme against fake and forged securities. In one instance, a loan of Rs.20 lakhs was sanctioned in favour of Renati Subbamma based on fabricated Pattadar Pass Books, Adangal, 1-B extracts, property certificates, inflated valuation reports, and a false legal opinion. Mandatory pre-sanction and post-sanction procedures such as inspection, verification of land ownership, income assessment, and documentation were deliberately not followed, enabling the fraudulent sanction of the loan.Investigation revealed that the title deeds and revenue records produced were not genuine, the valuation and legal opinions were falsely issued, and loan proceeds were diverted through bank accounts and withdrawn without any repayment. Fingerprint and handwriting expert opinions confirmed the execution of loan documents by the borrower, while also establishing forged signatures on property records and genuine signatures of the valuer, advocate, and other beneficiaries on relevant documents. The borrower failed to repay the loan, causing a wrongful loss of Rs.14 lakhs to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused. The accused are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of ‘the P.C.Act’.

32. It is stated in C.C.No.35,the charge sheet, that the case was registered on a complaint by the Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, alleging that Y. Mohan Kumar, while functioning as Branch Manager, IOB Pedalavalapadu (2010 to 2012), entered into a criminal conspiracy with middlemen and borrowers to defraud the bank. By abusing his position as a public servant, he processed, sanctioned, and disbursed multiple agricultural loans under the IOB Green Credit Yojana against fake, forged, or inflated securities, loans to borrowers without agricultural land, and non- existent SME travel firms, in gross violation of banking norms. As a result, the bank allegedly suffered a wrongful loss of about Rs.623.05 lakhs. He is also alleged to have sanctioned loans without conducting mandatory pre-sanction and post-sanction procedures such as inspection, verification of land records, income assessment, and proper documentation.Investigation revealed that several accused named in the FIR were not charge-sheeted as their loan accounts were genuine, fully repaid, or they lacked knowledge of fraudulent documents arranged by middlemen. However, in specific instances, including loans availed by Jada Rajeswari, forged Pattadar Pass Books, Adangal, 1-B extracts, and property certificates were used, supported by a fake legal opinion issued by Abdul Gaffar Shaik, Advocate. Loan amounts were credited to the borrower’s SB account and withdrawn with the approval of the Branch Manager, without adherence to prescribed safeguards. The investigation concluded that the acts of A1 Y. Mohan Kumar, along with the borrower and the advocate, constituted offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of ‘the P.C.Act’.

33. It is stated in C.C.No.36,the charge sheet, that the case was registered on a complaint from the Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, alleging that Y. Mohan Kumar, while functioning as Branch Manager, IOB Pedalavalapadu (2010 to 2012), entered into a criminal conspiracy with middlemen and borrowers to cheat the bank. By abusing his position as a public servant, he processed, sanctioned, and disbursed multiple agricultural loans under the IOB Green Credit Yojana against fake and forged securities, without following mandatory banking procedures. In one specific instance, P. Nagamma, a landless agricultural labourer, was sanctioned a loan of Rs.20 lakhs on the basis of fabricated title deeds arranged by a middleman and supported by a false legal opinion issued by Advocate Abdul Gaffar Shaik. Mandatory pre-sanction and post-sanction formalities such as inspection, verification of land records, income assessment, and documentation were deliberately bypassed.Investigation revealed that the Pattadar Pass Books, Adangal, 1-B extracts, and property certificates submitted in the name of P. Nagamma were not genuine, and the loan proceeds were credited to her SB account and withdrawn with the approval of the Branch Manager, without any repayment being made. Forensic examination confirmed the borrower’s thumb impressions on loan documents, while handwriting analysis established that the forged property records were not signed by the purported owner and that the legal opinion was authored by the advocate. The acts of Y. Mohan Kumar, P. Nagamma, and Abdul Gaffar Shaik resulted in a wrongful loss of Rs.19.83 lakhs to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused, constituting offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of ‘the P.C.Act’.

34. It is stated in C.C.No.29,the charge sheet, that the case was registered on a complaint from the Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, alleging that Y. Mohan Kumar, while functioning as Branch Manager, IOB Pedalavalapadu (2010 to 2012), entered into a criminal conspiracy with middlemen and borrowers to defraud the bank. By abusing his position as a public servant, he processed, sanctioned, and disbursed multiple agricultural loans under the IOB Green Credit Yojana against fake, forged, or inflated securities, loans to borrowers who did not own agricultural land, and loans to non-existent SME travel firms, in gross violation of banking guidelines, causing a wrongful loss of about Rs.623.05 lakhs. Investigation further found that several borrowers named in the FIR were not charge- sheeted as their securities were genuine, loans were repaid, or they lacked knowledge of forged documents arranged by middlemen; similarly, MSME vehicle loans were used for their intended purpose and were secured by hypothecation of vehicles.The charge sheet was ultimately filed against Y. Mohan Kumar (A1) and his co-conspirators, including Kale Chinna Malakondaiah, Advocate Abdul Gaffar Shaik, valuer Kanigiri Yella Rao, and Dasari Ramulu. In one specific instance, a loan of Rs.17.25 lakhs was sanctioned to Kale Chinna Malakondaiah on the basis of forged Pattadar Pass Books, Adangal, 1-B extracts, fake valuation reports, and a false legal opinion, without conducting mandatory pre-sanction and post-sanction formalities. Loan proceeds were diverted through bank accounts and RTGS transfers, resulting in partial repayment and a remaining loss to the bank. Forensic evidence confirmed genuine execution of loan documents by the borrower and established forged land records and culpable signatures of the advocate, valuer, and other accused. These acts resulted in wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding gain to the accused, constituting offencesunder Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of ‘the P.C.Act’.

35. It is stated in C.C.No.30,the charge sheet, that the case was registered on the complaint of J. Satyanarayana, Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, alleging that Yemmnuru Mohan Kumar, while functioning as Branch Manager of IOB, Pedalavalapadu during 16.10.2010 to 28.07.2012, entered into a criminal conspiracy with middlemen and borrowers to cheat the bank. By abusing his official position, he processed, sanctioned, and disbursed multiple agricultural loans under the IOB Green Credit Yojana against fake, forged, or inflated securities, loans to borrowers who did not own agricultural land, and loans under the SME sector to non-existent travel firms, in violation of banking norms. It is due to these irregular sanctions, the bank allegedly suffered a wrongful loss of about Rs.623.05 lakhs. During investigation, several borrowers named in the FIR were not charge-sheeted as their securities were genuine, loans were repaid, or they lacked knowledge of forged documents arranged by a middleman, and the responsibility for over- valuation was found to lie primarily with the Branch Manager.In one specific instance relating to Kale Venkateswarlu, Y. Mohan Kumar fraudulently sanctioned a loan of Rs.20 lakhs by recommending the borrower as credit- worthy without conducting mandatory pre-sanction and post-sanction formalities. Investigation revealed forged land records, absence of inspection reports, non-verification of income and repayment capacity, diversion of loan proceeds through RTGS transfers, and partial repayment resulting in a net loss of Rs.4.5 lakhs to the bank. Expert opinion confirmed that loan documents were genuinely signed by the borrower, while the land records were forged, and that the legal opinion, valuation report, and withdrawal documents bore the signatures of the concerned advocate, valuer, and co- accused. These acts allegedly caused wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding gain to the accused, constituting offencesunder Sections 120- B, 420, 468, 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of ‘the P.C.Act’.

36. It is stated in C.C.No.31,the charge sheet, that the case was registered on the complaint of J. Satyanarayana, Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, alleging that Yemmnuru Mohan Kumar, while functioning as Branch Manager of IOB, Pedalavalapadu during 16.10.2010 to 28.07.2012, entered into a criminal conspiracy with middlemen and borrowers to cheat the bank. By abusing his position as a public servant, he processed, sanctioned, and disbursed agricultural loans under the IOB Green Credit Yojana against fake, forged, or inflated securities, loans to borrowers without agricultural land, and SME loans to non-existent travel firms, in violation of banking norms, causing a total wrongful loss of Rs.623.05 lakhs to the bank. During investigation, several accused named in the FIR were not charge- sheeted as their securities were found genuine, loans were repaid, or they lacked knowledge of forged documents arranged by the middleman, and MSME vehicle loans were found eligible and properly utilized.The charge sheet was filed against Y. Mohan Kumar (A1), Sreerama Sreedevi (A2), and Abdul Gaffar Shaik,Advocate (A3) for one specific loan of ₹20 lakhs sanctioned to Smt. Sreerama Sreedevi, a landless agricultural labourer, on the basis of fake Pattadar Pass Books, Adangal, 1-B extracts, property certificates, and a false legal opinion. Investigation revealed that mandatory pre-sanction and post-sanction formalities were not properly followed, forged land records were accepted, loan proceeds were disbursed and withdrawn in instalments amounting to Rs.19.83 lakhs, and no repayment was made, resulting in wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding gain to the accused. Expert opinions confirmed genuine thumb impressions of the borrower on loan documents, forged land records, and the advocate’s signature on the false legal opinion. These acts constitute offencesunder Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of ‘the P.C.Act’.

37. It is stated in C.C.No.32,the charge sheet, that the case was registered on the complaint of J. Satyanarayana, Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, alleging that Yemmnuru Mohan Kumar, while working as Branch Manager of IOB, Pedalavalapadu during 16.10.2010 to 28.07.2012, entered into a criminal conspiracy with middlemen and borrowers to cheat the bank. By abusing his position as a public servant, he processed, sanctioned, and disbursed several agricultural loans under the IOB Green Credit Yojana against fake, forged, or inflated securities, loans to borrowers without ownership of agricultural land, and SME loans to non-existent travel firms, in violation of banking guidelines, causing an overall wrongful loss of Rs.623.05 lakhs. During investigation, many borrowers named in the FIR were not charge-sheeted as their securities were genuine, loans were repaid, or they lacked knowledge of forged documents, and MSME vehicle loans were found eligible and properly utilized, with hypothecation and recovery measures taken by the bank.The charge sheet was filed in respect of one specific loan of Rs.19.50 lakhs sanctioned to Gogana Gangamma, where investigation revealed acceptance of fake Pattadar Pass Books, Adangal, 1-B extracts, and property certificates, supported by a false legal opinion issued by Abdul Gaffar Shaik, Advocate. Mandatory pre-sanction and post-sanction formalities were not followed, inspection and verification were deficient, and loan proceeds were disbursed in installments and withdrawn or transferred, including diversion to the account of a middleman, with no repayment made, resulting in wrongful loss to the bank. Expert opinion confirmed that the borrower had executed the loan documents, while the land records were forged and the legal opinion bore the advocate’s genuine signature. These acts allegedly caused wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding gain to the accused, constituting offencesunder Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of ‘the P.C.Act’.

38. It is stated in C.C.No.33, the charge sheet, that the case was registered on the complaint of J. Satyanarayana, Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vijayawada, alleging that Yemmnuru Mohan Kumar, while functioning as Branch Manager of IOB, Pedalavalapadu during 16.10.2010 to 28.07.2012, entered into a criminal conspiracy with middlemen and borrowers to cheat the bank. By abusing his position as a public servant, he processed, sanctioned, and disbursed several agricultural loans under the IOB Green Credit Yojana against fake, forged, or inflated securities, loans to borrowers without agricultural land, and SME loans to non-existent firms, in violation of banking norms, resulting in an alleged wrongful loss of Rs.623.05 lakhs. Investigation found that many borrowers named in the FIR were not charge- sheeted as their securities were genuine, loans were repaid, or MSME loans were eligible and properly utilized, with hypothecation and recovery action taken by the bank.The charge sheet was filed against Y. Mohan Kumar (A-1),

Smt. P. Kanakamma (A-2), and Abdul Gaffar Shaik, Advocate (A-3) in respect of a specific agricultural loan of Rs.20 lakhs sanctioned to P. Kanakamma, a landless agricultural labourer. Investigation revealed that fake Pattadar Pass Books, Adangal, 1-B extracts, and property certificates were accepted on the basis of a false legal opinion issued by the advocate, and that mandatory pre- sanction and post-sanction formalities were not followed. Loan proceeds amounting to Rs.19.86 lakhs were disbursed in installments and withdrawn from the borrower’s account without any repayment, causing corresponding wrongful loss to the bank. Expert opinions confirmed that the borrower’s thumb impressions on loan documents were genuine, while the land records were forged and the legal opinion bore the advocate’s signature. These acts constitute offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of ‘the P.C.Act’.

39. However, on a careful perusal of the entire record, there are no statements from any of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that the petitioner, as the panel lawyer, conspired with any of the accused or rendered false legal opinions by dishonest or fraudulent means.

40. Before granting the loan, indeed, Accused No.1, being the Branch Manager, was required to follow certain precautions and formalities mentioned supra:

                  i) Pre-sanction Inspection Report is not available.

                  ii) Rough sketch map showing location and boundary of land signed by borrower and Branch Officer not kept in the loan file.

                  iii) No due certificate from the local Bankers near by the service area has not been obtained from the applicant.

                  iv) While arriving at the income from agriculture and fixing of repayment of loan the cropping pattern has not been discussed.

                  v) It has not been mentioned that the land has proper un-encumbered approach road in the office, note, at the time of appraisal.

                  vi) The PL-8 pro-forma was not obtained from the applicant.

                  vii) the Agri-9 (Relevant to the activity) pro-forma was not obtained from the applicant.

                  viii) Second line Manager certificate not obtained.

                  ix) As per the valuation/Estimation report given by Sri Kanigir Yella Rao (A-39), Consulting Engineer and Licensed Building Surveyor (who is not Panel valuer of IOB), the total valuation is Rs.45 lakhs and estimation for proposed works is Rs.20 lakhs.

41. In the course of the investigation, it was revealed only that the petitioner, being the panel lawyer for the bank, furnished legal opinions on different dates in favour of the borrowers. The petitioner/accused opined that the borrowers were in possession of the properties and that they had clear, absolute, and marketable titles, and that a valid mortgages by deposit of title deeds could be created. Of course, there is no record, statement, or material to show that the petitioner received any illegal gratification from any of the borrowers for rendering such false opinions. In the absence of any such material, arraying the petitioner as an accused is not proper, justifiable, legal and correct. Be that as it may, there is always either an implied or explicit disclaimer that any legal opinion rendered by any panel lawyer of the bank is based on the documents furnished by the Bank Manager and the available records.

42. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in K. Narayan Raosupra, wherein, at paragraph Nos.27 and 31, it is been held as under:

                  “27… In the banking sector in particular, rendering of legal opinion for granting of loans has become an important component of an advocate’s work. In the law of negligence, professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects and others are included in the category of persons professing some special skills. A lawyers does not tell his client that he shall win the case in all circumstances. Likewise, a physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practicing and while undertaking theperformance of the task entrusted to him, he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. This is what the person approaching the professional can expect. Judged by this standard, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings viz. either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed tohave possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.

                  31…However, it is beyond doubt that a lawyer owes an “unremitting loyalty” to the interests of the client and it is the lawyer’s responsibility to act in a manner that would best advance the interest of the client. Merely because his opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with the criminal prosecution, particularly, in the absence of tangible evidence that he associated with other conspirators. At the most, he may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 420 and 109 IPC along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them. It is further made clear that if there is a link or evidence to connect him with the other conspirators for causing loss to the institution, undoubtedly, the prosecuting authorities are entitled to proceed under criminal prosecution. Such tangible materials are lacking in the case of the respondent herein.”

43. Even in K. Narayan Raosupra, the accused therein had rendered a legal opinion stating that the borrower possessed clear and marketable title by virtue of certain sale deeds, which were purportedly verified by the accused as genuine. In that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the only assurance a professional, such as a panel lawyer, can give by implication is that he possessed the requisite skill in the branch of the profession in which he practiced and that, while undertaking the task entrusted to him, he would exercise such skill with reasonable competence.

44. In Surendra Nath Pandeysuprathe Hon’ble Supreme Court at para No.4 held as under:

                  “4…Taking into account the contents of FIR, we are left with the impression that the said allegations are bald and omnibus and do not make any specific reference to the role of the appellants in any alleged conspiracy. In CBI v. K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 to which one of us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.) was a party, it has been held by this Court that a criminal prosecution on the basis of such bald and omnibus statement/allegations against the panel advocates of the Bank ought not to be allowed to proceed as the same constitute an abuse of the process of the court and such prosecution may in all likelihood be abortive and futile.”

45. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.D. Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra ( (1984) 2 SCC 556) at para No.8 held as under:

                  “8…There is a world of difference between the giving of improper legal advice and the giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in the exercise of his profession does not amount to professional misconduct.”

46. The Hon’ble Apex Court inAlpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan ( (2001) 3 SCC 513) ,it is heldat paragraph No.10 as under:

                  To deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false and which the person practising the deceit knows or believes to be false. It must also be shown that there existed a fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of commission of the offence.

47. In the instant case also, the petitioner, being considered one of the effective and eminent lawyers in the area, was empanelled as a panel advocate for the bank. If the opinions rendered by the petitioner were perceived to be incorrect or false, the bank was entitled to proceed against him for alleged negligence or professional misconduct.There was no justification on the part of the 2ndrespondent in lodging a complaint with the respondentNo.1 for registration of criminal cases against several accused persons, including the petitioner.

48. In the present criminal petitions, the prosecution case is based on FIR RC No.02(A)/2014 dated 30.01.2014, registered on the complaint of the Chief Regional Manager of Indian Overseas Bank. On a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the case does not survive scrutiny under its inherent powers exercised under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lalsupra which lays down the circumstances in which criminal proceedings can be quashed to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice.Despite the allegations made by the CBI, a detailed perusal of the charge-sheets in C.C. Nos.27 to 36 of 2022 shows that there is no direct evidence linking the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.3 and was working as a panel advocate of the bank, to any criminal conspiracy or offences under Sections 120-B, 420 and 468 read with Section 471 of ‘the IPC.’

49. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he deliberately gave false legal opinions certifying defective title deeds submitted by borrowers, including Accused No.2, Dasari Ravi. However, the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Narayana Rao supra makes it clear that an advocate cannot be held criminally liable merely for giving a legal opinion, unless there is clear proof of dishonest intention, deliberate wrongdoing, or conspiracy with other accused.In the present case, the legal opinions given by the petitioner, though later questioned during investigation, at best show negligence in verifying revenue records such as Pattadar Passbooks, 1-B Adangal, and encumbrance certificates. Such lapses, if any, may give rise to civil liability or disciplinary action by the Bar Council, but do not attract offences under Sections 420 or 120-B of ‘the IPC.,’ as there is no material to show dishonest intention from the beginning or any overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy.Significantly, there is no evidence from prosecution witnesses or documents connecting the petitioner to the alleged loss of Rs.623.05 lakhs, and therefore, the prosecution against her appears to be an abuse of the process of law motivated by mala fides.

50. Applying the four-step test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwanisupra the material produced by the petitioner is of unimpeachable quality and has not been disputed by the prosecution. This material clearly destroys the factual basis of the charges and shows that the allegations are inherently improbable and do not disclose any issue requiring trial.As all four conditions are satisfied, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed to prevent unnecessary harassment of the petitioner and to avoid wasting valuable judicial time on a trial that is unlikely to end in conviction.

51. The CBI’s allegation that the petitioner actively participated in the offence by repeatedly giving false legal opinions and claiming to have conducted due diligence by visiting the Sub-Registrar’s office is not supported by law or evidence. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Nath Pandeysupra there is a clear distinction between wrong or improper legal advice and criminal misconduct, and criminal liability can arise only when there is proof of dishonest intention or deliberate collusion, not on the basis of vague or general allegations.In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner received any financial benefit from the borrowers or had any agreement with them, and the responsibility for loan sanction and pre- disbursement verification rested with the Branch Manager (Accused No.1, now deceased), which was not properly discharged. The material on record therefore points to lapses on the part of bank officials rather than any criminal act by the petitioner.

52. As held in Alpic Financesupra proof of dishonest intention from the very beginning is essential to attract criminal liability. In the present case, the legal opinions given by the petitioner, which formed part of the banking process, do not show any deliberate deception or intention to cause wrongful loss, but only reflect the limits of professional judgment without any criminal intent.Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings would wrongly convert a professional or civil dispute into a criminal case, undermine the independence of the legal profession, and violate the petitioner’s right to fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution. In such circumstances, the inherent powers of this Court deserve to be exercised to quash the proceedings and prevent a miscarriage of justice.

53. The petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, has been wrongly subjected to criminal prosecution merely for giving a legal opinion in the course of banking transactions. Judicial precedents clearly hold that an advocate cannot be prosecuted criminally for rendering a legal opinion unless there is clear proof of dishonest intention or deliberate wrongdoing.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Narayana Raosupra has held that an advocate is required to apply professional skill and diligence but does not guarantee that the opinion will always be correct, and any lapse may at best amount to civil negligence, not a criminal offence. Similarly, in Surendra Nath Pandeysupra the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that lack of high professional care, by itself, does not attract offences under Sections 420 or 120-B of ‘the IPC.,’ unless there is clear evidence of conspiracy or illegal gain.

54. The High Courts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Allahabad, including in Gyan Chandra Mehrotra v. State (2019 SCC OnLine All 3731) , have consistently followed this settled legal principle and quashed similar criminal cases where legal opinions given by advocates, though later found to be defective, were not shown to be motivated by mala fide intent.In the present case, the petitioner’s non- encumbrance certificate was rejected by the bank at the very beginning and was not relied upon during the investigation, which shows that at most there was a minor lapse in due diligence and not any criminal conspiracy. Allowing the prosecution to continue in such circumstances would unjustly harass the petitioner, undermine the independence of the legal profession, and misuse criminal law for a dispute that clearly belongs to the civil domain, thereby calling for quashing of the proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

55. The allegations under Section 420 of ‘the IPC.,’ fail because there is no material to show dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is an essential requirement under Section 415 of ‘the IPC’. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar ((2002) 1 SCC 241) , the offence of cheating requires deliberate deception that results in wrongful gain or wrongful loss.In the present case, the petitioner neither gave any assurance that the loans would be sanctioned nor derived any personal benefit from the transactions, and therefore the basic ingredients of Section 420 of ‘the IPC.,’ are not made out.

56. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion Or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases & Related Issues, In re ((2026) 2 SCC 233) , also was confronted with the vexed issue of whether advocates, who in the discharge of their professional obligations render legal opinions or appear on behalf of parties during the investigative stage of criminal proceedings, may legitimately be summoned as accused or witnesses by the investigating agencies. The Court, invoking the constitutional sanctity of the Bar and the inviolable principles of professional privilege, emphatically held that the mere act of tendering a legal opinion or representing a client cannot, without more, be construed as participation in a criminal design. To do so would amount to a grave infraction of the independence of the legal profession and a chilling encroachment upon the constitutional guarantee of fair representation. The Bench underscored that the investigative prerogative of the State must be harmonized with the autonomy of the legal fraternity, lest the scales of justice be irretrievably tilted against the citizen.

57. The Court articulated that summoning an advocate merely for having authored an opinion or for having appeared in investigative proceedings would be tantamount to a judicial impropriety and an abuse of process. It emphasized that the majesty of law is preserved only when the Bar is insulated from coercive tactics that undermine its independence. Thus, the ruling crystallized a jurisprudential safeguard: that advocates, as officers of the Court, cannot be transmuted into instruments of prosecution merely by virtue of their professional engagement, and any attempt to do so would strike at the very root of the adversarial system and the rule of law.

58. On a careful reading of the FIR, the allegations appear to be exaggerated and framed in a manner to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute, a practice disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960 SCC OnLine SC 21) . It is the duty of this Court to separate genuine cases from frivolous ones and to prevent misuse of the criminal process for settling private or civil disputes.In the present case, the petitioner is not shown to have any direct connection with the alleged conspiracy, and the charge-sheet is devoid of material evidence against her. Continuation of the proceedings would therefore amount to prosecutorial overreach, making it necessary to quash the case to prevent abuse of the process of law.

59. In conclusion, the prosecution case appears to be an attempt to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a matter of alleged professional negligence, which is not supported by the settled law laid down in R.P. Kapur and Pepsi Foods supra. Though the power under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. is to be exercised sparingly, it must be invoked where, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, no cognizable offence is made out. In the present case, there is no material connecting the petitioner to any criminal conspiracy, nor is there any link shown between her and the alleged middlemen or other accused.There is also no evidence of any agreement or overt act on the part of the petitioner in furtherance of the alleged offences. The issues highlighted in the charge-sheet, including discrepancies in revenue records, clearly fall within the civil or professional domain and may at best give rise to civil remedies or disciplinary proceedings, but not criminal prosecution.Therefore, these criminal petitions deserve to be allowed, and the proceedings in C.C. Nos.27 to 36 of 2022 pending before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate Court, CBI, Vijayawada, are liable to be quashed, as their continuation would result in injustice, unnecessary harassment of the petitioner, and misuse of the criminal process.

60. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Narayan Raosupra, the prosecutions against the petitioner are not tenable, sustainable, or legally justifiable. For the foregoing reasons, these criminal petitions are allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.Nos.27, 28, 29, 30, 31. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of 2022 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate (Non-PC) Court, CBI, Vijayawadaare hereby quashed.There shall be no order as to costs.

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