Sudha Verma vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 22 July, 2025

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sudha Verma vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 22 July, 2025

1. The present Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) impugns the order dated 15th February, 2025, whereby charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19884 were framed against the Petitioner, in CC No. 229/2019. The said complaint case was registered on the basis of a chargesheet dated 21st July, 2017 filed by the Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation,5 in RC No. DAI-2015-A-0028/CBI/ACB/ND.

"BNSS"

"Cr.P.C."

"IPC"

"PC Act"

"CBI"

CRL.M.C. 1441/2025 Page 1 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2025 at 22:25:41

2. Briefly, the case of the CBI against the Petitioner is as follows:

2.1. An FIR was registered against certain officials of Punjab National Bank, Najafgarh Branch6 wherein it was alleged that these officials entered into a criminal conspiracy with the directors of one M/s R.B.M. Developers Pvt. Ltd. with the aim to defraud the Bank. It was alleged that various credit facilities, including term loans, car loans, and housing loans, were sanctioned by the accused officials, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The Accused are alleged to have misappropriated the sanctioned funds through fictitious transactions with individuals and business entities, causing a wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of INR 4,11,42,163/-. The said Bank officials are further alleged to have colluded with the borrowers and other accused persons by wilfully disregarding established banking procedures and failing to ensure proper verification of documents and utilisation of disbursed funds.

2.2 In the above transaction, the Petitioner, Ms. Sudha Verma, a 72-year-

old Advocate empanelled with the Punjab National Bank7, prepared two title verification reports in connection with properties mortgaged as security for loans sanctioned by the Bank to RBM Pvt. Ltd. The said reports were found to be false and contrary to banking norms.

2.3 In view of the above, the Petitioner has been implicated for having conspired and facilitated the fraudulent transactions by providing misleading and incorrect legal opinions, thereby contributing to the sanctioning of loans on the basis of inadequate and improper security.

3. A chargesheet, has been filed wherein the Petitioner is arrayed as 6 "the Bank"

"PNB"

CRL.M.C. 1441/2025 Page 2 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2025 at 22:25:41 Accused No. 7 and the proceedings have progressed before the Trial Court wherein, vide the impugned order dated 15th February, 2025, charges have been framed against the Petitioner.

4. Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, has drawn the attention of the court to the relevant portions of the impugned order, which are as follows:

"53. There is evidence to indicate that A-1 S.K. Upadhyay and A-2 H.L. Mann failed to take into account the guidelines issued by the bank for recommending and sanctioning credit facilities to the borrower. The guidelines in respect of car loans required that the age of relationship with the borrower should be taken into account along with the supporting documents like profitability, cash flow and the repaying capacity. The bank officials failed to take into account these aspects and in fact, sanctioned car loan more than the requested amount. The guidelines in respect of credit facilities and term loans provided that the bank official should carry out an independent spot verification of the property proposed to be mortgaged and should also interact with the people of locality to ensure that the property has not changed hands. No such spot verification was carried out by the bank officials. The guidelines further provided that the mortgaged property site should be visited periodically and also at the time of enhancement of the cash credit limit. It advised the bank officials to remain extra cautious while accepting sale deed and other documents of the property as collateral securities. It provided that in order to avoid fraud, the branch should ensure KYC compliance. It further directed that the certified copies of the sale deed should be deposited at the time of creation of mortgage.

54. It may be noted that the bank officials failed to carry out the KYC of the person, who impersonated as the owner of the mortgaged property. The certified copy of the sale deed was also not deposited at the time of creating the mortgage. It is apparent that in case, A-1 S.K. Upadhyay and A-2 H.L. Mann would have followed these guidelines, the bank would not have been cheated. The identity of the impostor would have been revealed, in case, these bank officials would have insisted on KYC compliance. The spot inspection and the enquiries from local people would have revealed that the sale deed was forged and the person mortgaging the property was not the owner of the property. The acts, omissions and conduct of the bank officials cannot be considered as mere procedural lapses. It can be seen that A-1 and A-2 were seasoned bank officials who had already put in number of years in their service. It can be safely taken that these bank officials were well aware and familiar with the guidelines and the CRL.M.C. 1441/2025 Page 3 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2025 at 22:25:41 precautions required to be taken for processing and sanctioning the loans and credit facilities. The material on record does support the argument of the prosecution that the bank officials intentionally omitted to take precautions and sanctioned the loan by flouting the standard protocol. It may be observed that the bank officials also failed to monitor the disbursal of the funds. There is evidence on record to indicate that the funds were transferred from one account to the other on the pretext of false business transactions. Some of the funds from the cash credit account were also transferred in the savings accounts of individuals. The accounts of some of the entities were in the same bank. The fact that the bank officials failed to monitor the disbursal of the funds further indicates their complicity. The bank officials allowed the funds of the cash credit limit and the second term loan diverted for different purposes and facilitated the siphoning of the funds by various individuals. All these circumstances, taken together, lead to an inescapable conclusion that there is a strong suspicion that the bank officials were acting in hand in gloves with the other accused persons.

                                             xxx                          xxx
                                             xxx

58. On considering the documents and statements of witnesses filed along with the charge-sheet, I am of the considered view that the material on record prima facie indicates that A-1 S.K. Upadhyay and A-2 H.L. Mann conspired with the other accused persons and abused their official position as public servants and extended pecuniary advantage to A-3 RBM, its directors A-4 Rajender Bhushan Sharma and A-5 Ms. Meera Sharma as well as to the other accused persons. The manner in which the funds from the sanctioned loans and credit facilities were siphoned off by A-10 to A-29 against fake and dummy business transactions prima facie indicates that they played active role in cheating the bank. A-7 Ms. Sudha Verma and A-8 Arun Aggarwal played their role in the conspiracy by submitting fake and incomplete search and valuation reports in respect of the property offered to be mortgaged at the time of obtaining the credit facilities. A-9 Parminder Singh facilitated the loan transaction by submitting assessment of working capital requirement and book debit statement which accompanied the loan application. There is evidence to indicate that he received funds from RBM for playing his role in the conspiracy. The loan accounts turned NP A and the bank was cheated resulting in huge financial loss. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to frame charges under Section 120B of IPC read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, and substantive offences thereof against all the accused persons."

5. Mr. Khurana submits that the reports in question were rendered by the CRL.M.C. 1441/2025 Page 4 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2025 at 22:25:41 Petitioner in her professional capacity as a panel advocate, and that she had exercised due diligence while conducting the title verification. He contends that, at best, the allegations against her may amount to professional negligence in not adhering to the Bank's expectations or internal protocols, but such conduct does not attract the ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC, or Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Additionally, he states that the Petitioner had no role in the disbursal of the loan, did not collude with the borrower, and her involvement was limited solely to rendering a legal opinion on title verification.

6. Mr. Khurana, further submits that there is no allegation in the charge- sheet to suggest that any dishonest inducement was made by the Petitioner which led the Bank to part with any money, except towards her professional fee for rendering legal opinion. He emphasises that this was the only financial transaction between the Petitioner and the Bank. Moreover, there is no allegation of any financial dealing between the Petitioner and the borrower or any of the other accused in connection with the disbursal of the loan amount.

7. In support, Mr. Khurana places reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao,8 to argue that while a lawyer owes a duty of care to the client and may be held liable in disciplinary proceedings for negligence or professional misconduct, such lapse, does not constitute an offence. Unless there is specific and cogent evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner acted in concert with the other accused persons with the intent to defraud or cause wrongful loss to the Bank, the invocation of penal provisions is wholly CRL.M.C. 1441/2025 Page 5 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

"30. Therefore, the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the Bank. In the given case, there is no evidence to prove that A-6 was abetting or aiding the original conspirators.

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."

8. Further, Mr. Khurana refers to the orders passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.M.C. 5279/2024, wherein on a similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court on a prima facie view of the matter, directed the stay of the proceedings before the Trial Court qua the Petitioner.

9. Having regard to the aforenoted submissions, and on a prima facie appreciation of the material on record, the Court is of the view that the Petitioner does not appear to have played any role in the actual disbursal of the loan. Her involvement, as per the allegations, is confined to furnishing the title verification reports in her capacity as a panel advocate of the Bank. There is no allegation that the Petitioner received any illegal gratification or favour in connection with the said reports. Thus, prima facie, at this stage, her role appears limited to that of a legal advisor, with no direct nexus to the 8 2012 (9) SCC 512 CRL.M.C. 1441/2025 Page 6 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

10. In view of the above, till the next date of hearing, the proceedings against the Petitioner in case bearing CC No. 229/2019, pending before the Special Judge (PC Act)/CBI-II, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, shall remain stayed. It is clarified that there is no stay on the proceedings qua the other accused persons.

11. Issue notice. Mr. Atul Guleria, SPP for CBI, accepts notice.

12. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

13. Re-notify on 04th November, 2025.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 22, 2025/ab CRL.M.C. 1441/2025 Page 7 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2025 at 22:25:41

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders