Pande Ratneshwari Prasad vs The Union Of India Through Central ... on 2 February, 2024

[Cites 34, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Pande Ratneshwari Prasad vs The Union Of India Through Central ... on 2 February, 2024

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                  1                 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors.



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND                           AT RANCHI

                       Cr.M.P. No. 763 of 2018
                               ---------

Pande Ratneshwari Prasad, aged about 61 years, son of late Pande Parmeshwari Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Chiraiyan Tanr, Gaya-Sherghati Road, Town-Gaya, P.S. Rampur, P.O. Gaya, District-Gaya (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner Versus The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation ....... Opp. Party With Cr.M.P. No. 572 of 2018

---------

2 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors.

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

----------

 For the Petitioner     : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                          Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
 For the Opp. Party     : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. SGI
                          Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to Addl. SGI
                          Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, AC to Addl. SGI
                                -----------
 C.A.V./Reserved on 19.01.2024                 Pronounced on 02/02/2024

1. All these petitions have been filed for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding in RC.12(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 763 of 2018]; RC.10(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 572 of 2018]; RC.08(S)/2014-EOW- R [Cr.M.P. No. 755 of 2018]; RC.09(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 764 of 2018] and; RC.11(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 768 of 2018] pending under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act including the order taking cognizance dated 17.05.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The prosecution story in brief which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under:

(i) Cr.M.P. No. 763 of 2018:

A complaint was made vide letter dated 28.07.2014 from Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City alleging therein that loan was given by State Bank of India, SME Branch, Bokaro Steel City to M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co. Hazaribagh. The said company was promoted by Vivek Pratap Singh and Birendra Kumar both Partners of M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co. Hazaribagh. The loan was sanctioned to aforesaid company/unit on 20.11.2006 but the same was declared NPA on 28.11.2011 and since then 3 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. there was no recovery in loan account to the tune of Rs. 2.59 crores plus accrued interest calculated till 2013.

It is further alleged that the said accounts of the company having been declared NPA and then same has been transferred to SAMB, Patna for hard recovery proceeded under SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, due to intervention of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi recovery was not proceeded but, in the meantime, NPA resolution Agent, M/s. Vision had taken possession of the land and properties of the company which were mortgaged to the Bank and further reported that sale deed no. 10710, 10723,11080,11081 and 12409 were found to be fake properties and as such could not be located.

The DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the said matter and accordingly a report was submitted wherein it was stated that all the aforesaid sale deeds i.e. 10710, 10723, 11080, 11081 and 12409 represents fake properties and mortgagor Birendra Kumar neither has possession nor ownership of the said landed property which were mortgaged by way of sale deed.

It is alleged that the investigating official of the bank has pointed out certain doubts on the integrity of the panel advocates of the bank including the present petitioner. The accusation against present petitioner was related to the sale deed no. 12409 dated 20.11.2008.

It is further stated that it is apparent from report that the properties as mortgaged to the bank against such public debt are all fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery was committed by the said company and its promoters and total amount of Rs.2.59 crores along with interest have been misappropriated.

Hence, a regular case was registered under sections 120B read with 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the firm M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co., Hazaribagh, Vivek Pratap Singh, Birendra Kumar, both Partners of M/s Balaji Food & Masala Co., Hazaribagh and other unknown.

(ii) Cr.M.P. No. 572 of 2018:

4 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors.

A complaint was received vide letter dated 28.07.2014 from Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City alleging therein criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating and using forged document as genuine by the accused borrowers S/Sh. Vivek Pratap Singh & Birendra Kumar, both Directors of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopack Pvt. Ltd, Demotand Distt. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand in the matter of obtaining Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 330 lacs and a Term Loan of Rs. 400 Lacs in the name of the firm M/s Shirdi Sai Technopack Pvt Ltd, Demotand Hazaribag on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.

For obtaining the said loan, Sh. Vivek Pratap Singh, Director of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopack Pvt. Ltd, Demotand, Hazaribagh created equitable mortgage of his immovable properties by depositing fake and fabricated sale deeds and thus cheated the bank to the tune of Rs. 4.89 crores. The Bank is not in a position to realize the loan amount as the mortgaged deeds are fake. The account has become NPA on 28.11.2011.

The required recovery measures were taken but due to intervention of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, the recovery was not proceeded. However, in the said recovery proceeding, it has come that the mortgaged property mortgaged vide sale deed nos.6745, 6775, 6774 dated 26.06.2009 were found to be fake properties.

Accordingly, the DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the said matter and a report was submitted wherein it was stated that all the aforesaid sale deeds represent fake properties and the investigating official of the bank has pointed out certain doubt on the integrity of the panel advocate, i.e., the present petitioner.

It is further stated that it is apparent from report that the properties as mortgaged to the bank against such public debt are all fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery was committed by the said company and its promoters and total amount of Rs.4.89 crores along with interest have been misappropriated.

Hence, a regular case is registered against M/s Shirdi Sai Technopack Pvt. Ltd, Demotand, Hazaribagh, Vivek Pratap Singh, Birendra Kumar, both Directors of M/s Shirdi Sai Technopack Pvt. Ltd, Demotand, Hazaribagh and others unknown u/s 120-B r/w 420, 468 & 471 of IPC.

5 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors.

(iii) Cr.M.P. No. 755 of 2018:

A complaint was received vide letter No. CM/CR/2014-15/128 dated 28.07.2014 from Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City alleging criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating and using forged documents as genuine by Shri Vivek Pratap Singh, Shri Uday Pratap Singh and Smt. Renuka Singh, all Directors of M/s Renuka Polypacks Pvt. Ltd., Demotand, Hazaribagh in the matter of sanction of Cash Credit (CC) limit of Rs.80 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs 150 Lacs, and takeover of Term Loan of Rs 200 Lacs and Cash Credit Limit of 80 Lacs from Allahabad Bank, Ranchi. Altogether Rs 5.10 Crores was sanctioned by State Bank of India, Commercial (SME) Branch, Doranda, Ranchi on 20.10.2005.

After some time, loan amount was enhanced up to Rs. 7.99 Crores. On the request of borrowers, the loan accounts were transferred to State Bank of India, SME Branch, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. After certain periods, loan accounts became irregular and Bank declared those accounts as NPA on 28.11.2011.

The required recovery measures were taken but due to intervention of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, the recovery was not proceeded. However, in the said recovery proceeding, it has come that the mortgaged property mortgaged vide sale deed no.4221 dated 07.05.2009 was found to be fake property.

Accordingly, the DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the said matter and a report was submitted wherein it was stated that the aforesaid sale deed represents fake property and the investigating official of the bank has pointed out certain doubt on the integrity of the panel advocate, i.e., the present petitioner.

It is further stated that it is apparent from report that the properties as mortgaged to the bank against such public debt are all fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery was committed by the said company and its promoters and total amount of Rs.7.99 crores along with interest have been misappropriated.

Hence, a regular case is registered against M/s Renuka Polypacks Pvt. Ltd., Hazaribagh, Shri Vivek Pratap Singh, Shri Uday Pratap Singh, Smt. 6 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. Renuka Singh, all Directors of M/s Renuka Polypacks Pvt. Ltd and others unknown u/s 120B r/w 420,468 and 471 of IPC.

(iv) Cr.M.P. No. 764 of 2018:

A complaint was received vide letter No CM/CR/2014-15/129 dated 28:07 2014 from Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City-827004 alleging criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating and using forged documents as genuine by Shri Vivek Pratap Singh, and Shri Uday Pratap Singh, both Directors of M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd, Demotand, Hazaribagh in the matter of sanction of Cash Credit (CC) limit of Rs.2.4 Crores and Term Loan of Rs 5.75 Crores by State Bank of India, Commercial (SME) Branch, Doranda, Ranchi on 04 03.2006. Subsequently, same was enhanced and total loan amount went up to Rs 15 22 Crores. On the request of borrowers, the loan accounts were transferred to State Bank of India, SME Branch, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. After some period, loan accounts became irregular and Bank declared the accounts as NPA on 28.11.2011.

The required recovery measures were taken but due to intervention of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, the recovery was not proceeded. However, in the said recovery proceeding, it has come that the mortgaged property mortgaged vide sale deed no.2327 dated 09.03.2009 and sale deed no.2194 dated 04.03.2009 were found to be fake properties.

Accordingly, the DGM (Vigilance) ordered an investigation into the said matter and a report was submitted wherein it was stated that the aforesaid sale deeds represent fake properties and the investigating official of the bank has pointed out certain doubt on the integrity of the panel advocate, i.e., the present petitioner.

It is further stated that it is apparent from report that the properties as mortgaged to the bank against such public debt are all fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery was committed by the said company and its promoters and total amount of Rs.15.52 crores along with interest have been misappropriated.

Hence, a regular case is registered against M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd., Hazaribagh, Shri Vivek Pratap Singh, Uday Pratap Singh, both 7 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. Directors of M/s Renuka Industries Pvt. Ltd, and others unknown u/s 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

(v) Cr.M.P. No. 768 of 2018:

A complaint was received vide letter dated 28.07.2014 from Shri Neeraj Raja Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City-827004 alleging therein criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating and using forged documents as genuine by the accused borrowers Sh Vivek Pratap Singh & Vineet Pratap Singh both Directors of M/s Balaji Laminator Pvt. Ltd, Demotand Distt. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand in the matter of obtaining cash credit limit and term loan in the name of the firm M/s Balaji Laminator Pvt. Ltd., Demotand, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.

For obtaining the said loan Sh. Vivek Pratap Singh, Director of M/s Balaji Laminator Pvt. Ltd, Demotand, Hazaribagh created equitable mortgage of his immovable properties by depositing fake and fabricated sale deeds and thus cheated the bank to the tune of Rs. 5.43 crores. The Bank is not in a position to realize the loan amount as the mortgaged deeds are fake. The account has become NPA on 09.10.2011.

The required recovery measures were taken but due to intervention of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, the recovery was not proceeded. However, in the said recovery proceeding, it has come that the mortgaged property mortgaged vide sale deed no.11421 dated 04.11.2009 and sale deed no.12881 dated 06.12.2008 were found to be fake properties.

It is further stated that it is apparent from report that the properties as mortgaged to the bank against such public debt are all fake and based on forged documents and as such big forgery was committed by the said company and its promoters and total amount of Rs.5.43 crores along with interest have been misappropriated.

8 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors.

Hence, a regular case is registered against the firm M/s Balaji Laminator Pvt. Ltd, Demotand, Hazaribagh, Vivek Pratap Singh, Vineet Pratap Singh both Directors of M/s Balaji Laminator Pvt. Ltd, Demotand, Hazaribagh and others unknown u/s 120-B r/w 420, 468 & 471 of IPC.

3. The CBI after conducting investigation submitted Charge-sheet vide charge-sheet No. 7/2014; 5/2014; 03/2015; 04/2015 and; 6/2015 dated 30.09.2015 against the accused persons including the present petitioner alleging offences under sections 120B read with 420,467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

4. Hence the instant petitions have been preferred for quashing and setting aside the order taking cognizance dated 17.05.2016. including entire criminal proceeding registered under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no forgery has been committed by the petitioner rather specific finding of CBI is against Vivek Pratap Singh who figures as the beneficiary of the loan advanced by the Bank.

6. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation that the petitioner has made any financial gain or obtained any illegal gratification.

Further, it has been contended that from perusal of the order taking cognizance, it would appear that the learned Special Judge has not applied its judicial mind, before taking cognizance, rather it appears that the cognizance has been taken in a mechanical manner and, therefore, the order taking cognizance is bad in law.

7. It has also been contended that the opinion of the petitioner was based upon the documents provided to him and he had no reasons to assume that any of these documents might be forged/false.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayan 9 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512, has submitted that the similar matter was before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the criminal case was quashed after taking note of the contents of the Title Inspection Report (TIR).

9. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has also put his reliance on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Mohana Raj Nair vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [Criminal Writ Petition No. 727 of 2012] reported in 2013 Supreme (Mah) 1914, has submitted that this case is also similar to that of the case of the petitioner herein, wherein also, the proceedings was quashed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to another judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in P. Venkateswara Rao vs. State - CBI, Hyderabad, rep. by Special Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad [Cr. Petition No. 2608 of 2009], has submitted that the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held in the said judgment that a lawyer is not bound by those circulars or norms of the bank which stipulate that he should personally visit the registry office for title search.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid aspects of the matter has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was not given any circular or norms of the bank requiring to go to the government departments (registry office, circle office, etc.) and the whole allegation against the petitioner is related to the fact that in the printed format of TIR (Title Inspection Report) such language had been mentioned which got superseded by the handwritten remarks/caveat appended by the petitioner.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and having no criminality as has been alleged in the instant cases, as such, the entire criminal proceeding in RC.12(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 763 of 2018]; RC.10(S)/2014-EOW- R [Cr.M.P. No. 572 of 2018]; RC.08(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 755 of 2018]; RC.09(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 764 of 2018] and; RC.11(S)/2014-EOW-R [Cr.M.P. No. 768 of 2018] pending under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act including the order taking cognizance dated 17.05.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read 10 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, are fit to be quashed and set aside.

13. While on the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has submitted that no interference is required by this Court at this stage, as the Special Judge has fully applied his mind before taking the cognizance of the alleged offences and from perusal of the materials collected during investigation, it is apparent that the petitioner-accused is fully involved in the alleged commission of crime.

14. Learned Counsel for the respondent while opposing the contention of the petitioner has referred to the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was an advocate on panel of State Bank of India and in the instant case he has furnished false "Title Investigation Report" (TIR) in respect of property registered vide sale deed no. 12409 dated 20.11.2008; sale deed nos.6745, 6774 and 6775 dated 26.06.2009; sale deed no. 4221 dated 07.05.2009; sale deed no. 2327 dated 09.03.2009 and sale deed no.2194 dated 04.03.2009 and; vide sale deed no.12881 dated 06.12.2008, respectively, in favour of one of the accused/borrower and fraudulently and dishonestly furnished report declaring the title of the landed properties covered by the said sale deeds is fit for equitable mortgage.

15. It is further submitted that the present petitioner had submitted incorrect TIR and it cannot be ruled out that he has furnished such report in connivance of the other accused persons.

Further it is not the appropriate stage to consider about the culpability of the present petitioner because the Hon'ble Court only has the bounden duty to see the complicity of the petitioner on the prima-facie basis.

16. It is further contended that the points raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no transaction between the petitioner and the other accused persons is a matter of evidence and that stage has not come as yet and it can be done during the trial. It is for the prosecution to lead evidence on the said point at an appropriate stage as to whether there was any transaction between the petitioner and the other accused, or not. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that there was no transaction between 11 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. him and the other accused, at the relevant time, at best can be said to be his evidence which cannot be looked into at this stage.

17. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the present proceedings are at the stage of order taking cognizance and the points raised by the petitioner, can at best be raised before the learned court at appropriate stage, and these facts may not be entertained at this stage.

18. Based upon the aforesaid premise the learned counsel for C.B.I. submits that there is sufficient material on record for constituting prima facie case against the petitioner, which may not be quashed.

19. This Court has heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record including the charge-sheet.

20. Before adverting into facts of the instant case it will be profitable to discuss herein the ambit and scope of inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

21. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191.

22. At this juncture it requires to refer herein the position of law for making interference by the court of law either in the F.I.R. or in the order taking cognizance. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] has laid down the guideline under paragraph 102 and 103. The relevant passages are extracted and quoted 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 12 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. 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 give 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 noncognizable 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."

The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra), has again been reiterated in Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal [(2008) 17 SCC 157] at paragraph 20 which reads as under:

"20. So far as the scope and ambit of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is concerned, the same has been enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a catena of decisions and illustrative circumstances under which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in quashing the 13 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. proceedings have been enumerated. However, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to make reference to the decisions on the point. It would suffice to state that though the powers possessed by the High Court under the said provision are very wide but these should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The inherent powers possessed by the High Court are to be exercised very carefully and with great caution so that a legitimate prosecution is not stifled. Nevertheless, where the High Court is convinced that 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 or where the allegations made in the FIR or the 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, the powers of the High Court under the said provision should be exercised."

Again, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat [(2017) 9 SCC 641] the scope of interfering with the order taking cognizance or the F.I.R. at the threshold has been dealt with at paragraph 16 which is quoted as under:

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

14 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8.

and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

23. Now this court is adverting to examine the complicity of the petitioner as has been surfaced in course of investigation on the basis of which the charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken in order to reach to the conclusion as to whether prima facie case is made out against the petitioner even if the entire allegation as found in the charge-sheet is taken to be true on the face of it.

24. However, before answering to the aforesaid issue it will be required to referred herein the process of taking cognizance as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code.

25. The expression "taking cognizance" has not been defined in the Code. However, when the Magistrate applies his mind for proceeding under Sections 200-203 of the Code, he is said to have taken cognizance of an offence. 'Taking cognizance' does not involve any formal action of any kind. It occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence.

26. This legal position is explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 492] in the following words:

"19. The expression 'cognizance' has not been defined in the Code. But the word (cognizance) is of indefinite import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law. It merely means 'become aware of' and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connoted 'to take notice of judicially'. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes 15 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone.

20. 'Taking cognizance' does not involve any formal action of any kind. It occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence."

27. It is further settled connotation of law that sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609 wherein at paragraph 48 it has been observed as under:

"48. Sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. When he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not.

49. Cognizance of an offence and prosecution of an offender are two different things. Section 190 of the Code empowered taking cognizance of an offence and not to deal with offenders. Therefore, cognizance can be taken even if offender is not known or named when the complaint is filed or FIR registered. Their names may transpire during investigation or afterwards."

Further, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself.

The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.

28. Now coming into facts of the case, it appears that a complaint was lodged vide letter dated 28.07.2014 from the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City alleging therein 16 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating and using forged documents as genuine by the accused borrowers in the matter of obtaining cash credit limit and term loan in the name of the respective firms on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.

29. For obtaining the said loan the partners of respective firms created equitable mortgage of their immovable properties by depositing fake and fabricated sale deeds and thus cheated the Bank to the tune of Rs. 2.59; 4.89; 7.99; 15.52 and; 5.43 crores respectively.

30. From perusal of the complaint as well as charge-sheet it is evident that the specific accusation against petitioner is that being a panel lawyer of the creditor Bank he furnished wrong "Title Investigation Report" (TIR) in respect of property registered vide sale deed no. 12409 dated 20.11.2008; sale deed nos.6745, 6774 and 6775 dated 26.06.2009; sale deed no. 4221 dated 07.05.2009; sale deed no. 2327 dated 09.03.2009 and sale deed no.2194 dated 04.03.2009 and; vide sale deed no.12881 dated 06.12.2008, respectively, in favour of the borrower/accused by declaring that the aforesaid sale deeds are fit for equitable mortgage.

It has also come on the record that the said sale deeds were mortgaged by the borrower for getting loan and enhancement in credit facilities sanction.

31. During investigation it has been disclosed that the some of the properties registered by the aforesaid sale deeds were Government lands and some are privately owned lands and title of the same were not in favour of the borrower and the supporting documents were also found as fake and forged. Basis upon the aforesaid facts, it is alleged that the present petitioner furnished false information that he inspected the records of Circle Office and Sub-Registrar Office for verification of genuineness of the title of the said properties, as such, the probable connivance or conspiracy of the petitioner with other accused cannot be lightly brushed out. For ready reference the particular paragraphs of the charge-sheet wherein the accusation against the petitioner is mentioned under heading "Role of Accused person" reads as under:

"Cr.M.P. No. 763 of 2018:

Pande Ratneshwari Prasad 17 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. "He gave "Title Investigation Report" dated 20.12.08 in respect of fake property registered vide sale deed no.12409 dated 20.11.2008 genuine in favour of Birendra Kumar and it for mortgage He did not visit Circle Office, Hazaribagh before giving legal opinion, although he has signed an undertaking that he has inspected the records of the Circle office and Sub- Registrar Office. He dishonestly submitted false legal opinion at the time of 1st enhancement of loan. His report was important for the bank as on the basis which properties were mortgaged."

Cr.M.P. No. 572 of 2018:

Pande Ratneshwari Prasad "He submitted false/conditional Title Investigation Report (TIR) in respect of fake property registered vide Sale Deed Nos.6745, 6774 and 6775 all dated 26.06.2009. He gave certificate in TIR that Shri Vivek Pratap Singh has an absolute, clear and marketable title over the properties. He also dishonestly certified that the title deeds are genuine and a valid mortgage can be created and the said mortgage would be enforceable."

Cr.M.P. No. 755 of 2018:

Pande Ratneshwari Prasad "He prepared and submitted false title investigation reports in respect of collateral securities including fake property (government land) registered vide Sale Deed No.4221 dated 07.05.2009. On the basis of such false title investigation reports the loan were enhanced."

Cr.M.P. No. 764 of 2018:

Pande Ratneshwari Prasad "Pande Ratneshwari Prasad gave "Title Investigation Report" in respect of all collateral securities including fake property registered vide sale deed nos.2194 dated 04.03.2009 and 2327 dated 09.03.2009 in favour of Vivek Pratap Singh and mentioned it to be fit for valid equitable mortgage. He dishonestly submitted his false title investigation report at the time of sanction and enhancement of loan. So his report was very important, on the basis of which properties were mortgaged."

Cr.M.P. No. 768 of 2018:

Pande Ratneshwari Prasad "He dishonestly and fraudulently gave "Title Investigation Report" in respect of fake property registered vide sale deed no.12881 dated 06.12.2008 in favour of Vivek Pratap Singh and mentioned it is to be fit for equitable mortgage, which was actually a Govt. land. He did not visit the Circle Office, Hazaribagh before giving his legal opinion, although he has signed an undertaking that he has inspected the records of Circle Office and Sub Registrar Office. He also gave positive legal opinion for deed no.1402 dated 11.03.2006 for the land of Gaya, which is an agricultural land, mentioning it to be not an agricultural land."

32. It has come in the investigation that the legal opinion in the landed property offered by Birendra Kumar was given by present petitioner in capacity of the panel advocate of the concerned Bank. He submitted Title Investigation report in the bank's prescribed format certifying title of the property in favour of mortgagor. He reported that his report is based on the document supplied to him by the bank. However, the petitioner has also given 18 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. undertaking wherein he mentioned that he made a search and scrutiny in the Land/Revenue records and did not find anything adverse.

33. Further, it is revealed in the investigation that the petitioner submitted false legal opinion in respect of sale deed no.12409 dated 20.11.2008; Sale Deed Nos.6745, 6774 and 6775 all dated 26.06.2009; Sale Deed No.4221 dated 07.05.2009; sale deed nos.2194 dated 04.03.2009 and 2327 dated 09.03.2009 and; sale deed no.12881 dated 06.12.2008 which were proposed to be mortgaged. During Investigation it has been disclosed that the property mortgaged by borrower, vide aforesaid sale deeds in support of title of the properties have been found fake and fabricated.

34. The verification report of Circle Office, Sadar Circle, Hazaribagh has confirmed that some of the properties transferred by the vendor in favour of the borrower are the properties of Government of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and some of the properties are privately owned lands and can't be transferred and also the rent receipt shown to be issued in support of the respective properties entered on Vol. II of Register II are fake rent receipts.

35. From perusal of charge-sheet it is evident that the instant case in many ways demonstrates the clout and resources of those who intend to hack and subvert the system to commit their illegal act. Every functionary appears to have contributed to bring to fruition the object of the conspirator. In the chain of events the present petitioner admittedly issued TIR, on the strength of which credits were sanctioned.

36. The law regarding the opinion given by the legal professional can be considered to have the intent of criminality has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra, Bombay and Ors., (1984) 2 SCC 556 wherein it has been held that "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."

37. It is, thus, evident from the proposition as laid down in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the liability against the opining 19 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the bank.

38. The question of coming into the conclusion as to whether the petitioner has acted with negligence or having with criminality in mind is required to be assessed so as to come to the conclusion that there is no intent of criminality due to the aforesaid conduct of giving opinion defrauding the bank to the tune of Rs. 2.59; 4.89; 7.99; 15.52 and; 5.43 crores respectively.

39. This Court is considering the aforesaid issue at the stage of order taking cognizance. The law is well settled as referred hereinabove that at the time of order taking cognizance the court who is to take cognizance is only to consider the prima facie case is made out against the concerned accused person or not based upon the material collected by the investigating officer in course of investigation and submitting charge-sheet under Section 172 sub-section (2) of Cr.P.C.

The Court who is to take cognizance has only duty under the Code to see the availability of prima facie material.

Further, the ratio which has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to test the part of the criminality whether it is conducted by the concerned professional, the petitioner, by giving legal opinion is sheer ignorance or as a participant in the defraud depends upon the appreciation of the factual aspects which is at the stage of cognizance is not required to be assessed or seen by the order taking cognizance rather the appropriate stage is either at the time of charge or filing discharge petition or in course of trial by leading evidence to substantiate the fact that there is no question of criminality in giving opinion leading to defrauding the bank.

40. Herein, we are dealing with the issue of defraud of Rs. 2.59; 4.89; 7.99; 15.52 and; 5.43 crores respectively as the fact of the case is which admittedly is the public money and hence, the more minute parameter is to be adopted while quashing the criminal prosecution.

41. The law as has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Pubjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 followed in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) which is still a good law. The principle of quashing as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case is that even taking the offence to be treated in entirety of the FIR or 20 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. the material collected in the case diary if no case is made out then certainly the criminal proceedings is to be quashed on the principle that when there is no material having been collected in course of investigation why the person concerned be put to face the rigour of the trial but herein coming to the fact of the case it is evident that the present petitioner has furnished false Title Investigation Report (TIR) and undertaking was given that he inspected the records of Circle Office and Sub-Registrar Office for verification of genuineness of the title of the said properties, as such, the probable connivance or conspiracy of the petitioner with other accused cannot be ruled out at this stage.

42. It is pertinent to mention here that in almost similar facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Yogendra Singh and Another, (2020) 12 SCC 588, while dealing with the application of Section 420 and 120 IPC has observed that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law. For ready reference, relevant paragraph, i.e., para-5 is being reproduced as under:

"5. We find that the High Court has examined the entire issue as to whether the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC is made out or not at pre- trial stage. The respondents are beneficiary of the grant of cash credit limit when their father was the President of the Bank. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law. The manner in which loan was advanced without any proper documents and the fact that the respondents are beneficiary of benevolence of their father prima facie disclose an offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. It may be stated that other officials of the Bank have been charge-sheeted for an offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. The charge under Section 420 IPC is not an isolated offence but it has to be read along with the offences under the Act to which the respondents may be liable with the aid of Section 120- B IPC."

43. Whether such TIR was issued by default or design is a question of fact, which can be determined only at trial after the evidence is led on behalf of the prosecution and the petitioner has an opportunity to rebut the same.

44. Since, in the instant case petitioner inter alia is facing prosecution for offence of criminal conspiracy, therefore, it is required to refer herein the core of section 120-B of the IPC.

In section 120 B of the IPC, it is stipulated that the offence of conspiracy is complete as soon as the parties have agreed to their unlawful purpose. Under proviso to Section 120 of IPC, there should be some acts 21 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. apart from mere agreement. The very agreement, league or concert is the essence of the offence. As such a criminal conspiracy can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was agreement between two or more person to commit the illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.

45. This clearly envisages that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence. It is true that in most cases it will be difficult to get direct evidence of an agreement to conspire but a conspiracy can be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence.

46. Contrary to the usual rule that an attempt to commit a crime merge with the completed offense, conspirators may be tried and punished for both the conspiracy and the completed crime. Conspiracy is a clandestine activity; persons generally do not form illegal covenants openly. Execution of even a part of such act will attract the mischief of the Section 120B.

47. The points raised on behalf of the petitioner that there was no transaction or connivance between the petitioner and the other accused persons is a matter of evidence and that stage has not come as yet and it can be gone into during the trial. It is for the prosecution to lead evidence on the said point at an appropriate stage as to whether there was any transaction between the petitioner and the accused. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that there was no transaction between him and the other accused at the relevant time at best can be said to be his evidence which cannot be looked into at this stage.

48. It is evident from the material available on the record that the present petitioner had submitted incorrect TIR and also furnished the wrong undertaking that he had made search about the said property from the record. Thus, it is not the appropriate stage to consider about the culpability of the present petitioner with the other accused persons because at this primitive stage of the case, the Court has only bounden duty to see the complicity of the petitioner on the prima-facie basis only and to ascertain that was there any transaction between the petitioner and the other accused persons, is a matter of evidence.

22 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors.

49. Further, it is for the prosecution to lead evidence on the said point at an appropriate stage as to whether there was any transaction or connivance between the petitioner and the other accused, or not. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that there was no transaction or connivance between him and the other accused persons at the relevant time, at best can be said to be his evidence which cannot be looked into at this stage.

50. Since in the instant case the offence of cheating is also alleged against the petitioner therefore, it is required to refer herein certain authorities wherein the ingredients of cheating have been highlighted. In State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai [(1972) 3 SCC 661] the Hon'ble Court has observed as under:

"16. ... To hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise [and] such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from [a] mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise."

51. Section 415 wherein cheating has been defined has two parts. While in the first part, the person must 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently' induce the complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be intentional.

52. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay [AIR 1956 SC 575] a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order, therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the offence of cheating, 'mens rea' on the part of that person, must be established and in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered.

53. Thus, from aforesaid analysis it is clear that intention to commit cheating being a mental element is to be gathered from the conduct of the party and in the instant case at this stage, the scope of judicial scrutiny is a limited one to see whether a prima facie case is made out or not on the basis of materials on record.

54. Hence, the present proceeding is at the stage of order taking cognizance and the points raised by the petitioner, can at best be raised before the learned court at appropriate stage, and these facts may not be entertained at this stage.

23 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors.

55. Further regarding the applicability of the section 13(1) (d) of the prevention of corruption Act, this Court is of the view that definition under Section 13(1)(d) is wide enough to bring within its fold the act of an accused by which he derives for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chittaranjan Shetty v. State, (2015) 15 SCC 569 wherein at paragraph 22 it has been observed as under:

"22 On a perusal of the abovementioned judgments, it can be concluded that in order to prove the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, it must be established that a public servant has abused his position in order to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, and that, in this context, the "abuse" of position must involve a dishonest intention.

Act of the petitioner in issuing of no-objection certificate for the transfer of lands which were non-transferable was done to extend pecuniary advantage to other co-accused persons and therefore it cannot be acceded to the argument that offence is not made out under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act."

56. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayan Rao reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512, wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that merely because the opinion of lawyer may not be acceptable, he or she cannot be mulcted with the criminal prosecution, particularly, in the absence of tangible evidence that he or she associated with other conspirators, does not appear to be helpful to the petitioner on the point raised by him.

57. However, there is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid settle law on this point which has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

But in the instant case there is undertaking of the petitioner wherein it has been undertaken that the petitioner had searched the record of the said sale deed which is in question and after that he has submitted the TIR, as such the fact of the instant case is different from the fact of the case which has been referred by the petitioner, therefore, the aforesaid decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case at this stage.

58. Further it settled position of law that the applicability of the judgment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case and there cannot be any universal application of the judgment rather each judgment is to be decided on the basis of fact of each case. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court 24 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75.

59. The learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on the judgment as rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P. Venkateswara Rao vs. State -CBI, Hyderabad, rep. by Special Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad [Cr. Petition No. 2608 of 2009 and on the judgment as rendered by the Maharashtra High Court in Smt. Mohana Raj Nair vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [Criminal Writ Petition No. 727 of 2012] reported in 2013 Supreme (Mah) 1914.

60. After going through the aforesaid judgments of both the High Court it appears that the both of the aforesaid judgments have been passed on the basis of different facts which is different from the case in hand.

61. Further it is settled connotation of law that the judgment passed by the different High Courts is not having binding effect rather it is persuasive in nature and it is also settled position of law that if a High Court is not concurring with the view of the different High Courts or another High Court, then a reason is required to be assigned by the concerned High Court as to why the judgment rendered by the another High Court is not having the persuasive value, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradip J. Mehta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, (2008) 14 SCC 283, wherein, at paragraph-23, it has been held which reads as under:

"23. Although, the judgments referred to above were cited at the Bar in the High Court, which were taken note of by the learned Judges of the Bench of the High Court, but without either recording its agreement or dissent, it answered the two questions referred to it in favour of the Revenue. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that the High Court should, especially in the event of its contra view or dissent, have discussed the aforesaid judgments of the different High Courts and recorded its own reasons for its contra view. We quite see the fact that the judgments given by a High Court are not binding on the other High Court(s), but all the same, they have persuasive value. Another High Court would be within its right to differ with the view taken by the other High Courts but, in all fairness, the High Court should record its dissent with reasons therefor. The judgment of the other High Courts, though not binding, have persuasive value which should be taken note of and dissented from by recording its own reasons."

62. Now at this juncture this Court thinks fit to revisit the basic core of the Section 482 Cr.P.C. and its application.

25 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors.

63. It is settled connotation of the law that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing of entire criminal proceeding, scope of adjudication is limited to see whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of materials collected during the investigation and Courts cannot embark on a 'mini trial' at this stage by scrutinizing the evidence as to its probative value. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".

Further, it is settled proposition of law that powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles and such inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and it is not proper for the High Court to analyses the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and, on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed.

64. Now in the light of aforesaid settled proposition, at the cost of repetition it will be appropriate to reiterate the fact of the instant case.

65. In the instant case there is specific accusation against petitioner is that being a panel lawyer of the creditor Bank he furnished wrong "Title Investigation Report" (TIR) in respect of properties registered vide sale deed no. 12409 dated 20.11.2008; sale deed nos.6745, 6774 and 6775 dated 26.06.2009; sale deed no. 4221 dated 07.05.2009; sale deed no. 2327 dated 09.03.2009 and sale deed no.2194 dated 04.03.2009 and; vide sale deed 26 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. no.12881 dated 06.12.2008, respectively in favour of the borrower/accused by declaring the aforesaid sale deeds are fit for equitable mortgage and the said sale deed was mortgaged by the borrower for getting loan and enhancement in credit facilities.

66. During investigation it has been disclosed that some of the properties registered by aforesaid sale deeds were Government lands and some of the properties were privately owned land and title of the same were not in favour of the borrower and the supporting documents were also found as fake and forged. Basis upon the aforesaid facts it is alleged that the present petitioner furnished false information and submit wrong undertaking that he had inspected the records of Circle Office and Sub-Registrar Office for verification of genuineness of the title of the said properties, as such, the probable connivance or conspiracy of the petitioner with other accused cannot be lightly brushed out.

67. Thus, taking in to consideration of aforesaid settled connotation of law this court at this stage cannot go in to probative value of the alleged offence and also cannot stifle the prosecution case. Further at this stage it cannot be decided that Whether such TIR was issued by default or design a question of fact and same can be determined only at appropriate stage after the evidence is led on behalf of the prosecution and the petitioner has an opportunity to rebut the same.

68. Therefore, in the view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the considered view that at this stage it is not open for the Court either to shift the evidence or appreciate the evidence and has come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out.

69. So far, the order taking cognizance is concerned, it appears that learned Magistrate after application of his judicial mind i.e. after considering the materials in the chargesheet, has taken cognizance of the offences alleged and, therefore, this Court finds no illegality in the said order.

70. Further it is settled law that at the stage of order taking cognizance the meticulous analysis of the case is not necessary and the complaint has to be read as a whole and if it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the 27 Cr.M.P. No.763 of 2018 and Ors. ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 801 wherein at paragraph 30 it has been observed as follows:

"30. In CBI v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava [(2006) 7 SCC 188 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 233] the Court, after referring to Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36] and Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] , has observed that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles and such inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. This Court has further stated that it is not proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It has been further pronounced that it would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint could not be proceeded with. The Bench has opined that the meticulous analysis of the case is not necessary and the complaint has to be read as a whole and if it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.

71. In view of aforesaid discussion and findings above, this Court finds no merit in these petitions, accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed.

72. Interim order/stay granted, if any, stands vacated.

73. It is made clear that the observation made hereinabove since is only at the stage of order taking cognizance, as such, the same will not prejudice the case of the petitioner at the time of discharge or during the trial.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh/-

A.F.R.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court