The High Court · 2025

2. The State Bank of lndia Nirmal Branch, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Sri Garikapati Venkata Ramu S/o Surya Narayana Sarma, at Nizamabad-sO4'l06 ...Respondents/Complainants Petition under Section 528 oI BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased tolt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to C.C No. 437 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nirmal (Crime No.248 of 2016 of Police Station Nirmal Town) and quash the same against the Petitio ner/Accused No. 5. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioner/Accused No.5 in C.C.No.437 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nirmal (Crime No. 248 of 2016 of Police Station Nirmal Town) pending the disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of [Vlr PRABHAKAR SRIPADA, Senior Advocate Representing Mr. SETTY RAVI TEJA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr E.GANESH, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI :ADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1478'l of 20:li ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner accused No.5 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.437 o,f 2)24 on the file of I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at ,.lirmal, Nirmal District, registered for the offences under Sections 42a 46g,471 and 472 tPC.

2. Heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned (i rnior Counsel representing tr/r. Setti Ravi Teja, learned counsel or .ecord for the petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant public, rrosecutor for the respondent No.'l-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accL sed No..l has availed a house loan of Rs.71,57,000/- from responde nt No.2_State Bank of lndia, Nirmal Branch, by depositing the sale c eeds and the link documents with the Bank on which the then Bank I lanager, who is accused No.4 and the then Field Officer of the lank caused enquiry and verified the documents. After approverl of the Field Officer and the Branch [Vlanager, the documents wer,) forwarded to the Regional Manager for sanction. The Engineer_e :cused No.3 verified the documents and issued the house val .r ttion papers ) ETD,J Ctl P. No.111731o12025 without physically verifying the construction. The legal advisor- accused No.5 also verifled 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 lPC. Accused No.2 died during the pendency of investig ation.

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 J EfO,J ctl_P. No.t47810t 2025 has not created any forged document and hence, 1t e allegations under Sections 468 and 471 IPC also do not get attrrl 1ed. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner wouI be abuse of process of law and therefore, prayed to quash thr: proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has r; tbmitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 have created documents and t re petitioner- accused No.S has helped accused Nos. l and 2 in gr> ting the loan processed through the Bank and that he has als,: verified the documents and issued legal opinion stating that the vr lid mortgage can be created by depositing the original title deeds, bu when it was cross-checked with the opinion of another legal adviscr of the Bank, the fact came to light, and therefore, he prayed kr dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record

7. The petitioner herein is a panel Advocate of S tate Bank of lndia and he has issued legal opinion stating that he ha , verified the I documents and a valid mortgage deed can be created t y depositing I I the original title deeds. The contention of the learned c: tnsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no role to spe;l: about the 4 EID,J Ctl.P- No-1a781 ot 2025 -:ltlt1 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. lt is pertinent to note that when it was cross-checked with the opinion of another legal advisor of the State Bank of lndia branch, the fact came to light. Thus, the truth can be ascertained only after a full-fledged trial. Hence, it is not fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this time. However' it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before trial court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposedof dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court, provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and he shall be present as and when his presence is required by the trial court during the course of trial. I //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,/q SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Addl. Judicial First Class [Vlagistrate at Nirmal 2. The Station House Officer, Nirmal Town Police Station, Adilabad Dist I

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sil rte of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Mr PRABHAKAR SRIPADA, Senior Advc rate Representing lVr. SETTY RAVI TEJA, Advocate Advocate [OPUC] /

5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT ETD, J DATED: 2711112025 \ \ ORDER CRLP.No.14781 ot 2025 \ \ \lr t. ) I L:; &5 .i, Ss/)i r{l .: .a 1 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Di;posed of cL) ./ \o .r't\