Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Surendra Nath Pandey vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2015
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
1
ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 9739/2012
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29/06/2012
IN CRLM NO. 31533/2008 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA)
SURENDRA NATH PANDEY AND ANR PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH APPLN. (S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 03/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv.
Mr. S. Shantanu, Adv.
Mr. Pratap Shanker, Adv.
Ms. A. Shivani, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Exemption from filing O.T. is granted. Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Vinod Lakhina
Date: 2015.08.04
18:11:32 IST [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
Reason:
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1012 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9739/2012] SURENDRA NATH PANDEY AND ANR. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29th June, 2012 of the High Court of Patna passed in Crl. Misc. No.31533 of 2008 by which the High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants under Sections 403/406/420/467/471/389 read with Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. The High Court by the impugned judgment has refused to quash the First Information Report (FIR) on the ground that the same prima facie discloses commission of the offences alleged against the appellants who are the panel advocates of the Bank. A reading of the FIR would go to show that the allegations levelled against the appellants is that as panel advocates they had furnished false Search Report/NEC/legal opinion with regard to the properties/land documents in order to cheat the Bank and to facilitate obtaining of loan by the concerned persons. On investigation of the FIR, a charge-sheet has been submitted, a copy of which is enclosed to the present Appeal Paper Book. A reading of the charge-sheet does not refer to any specific 3 finding of investigation.
5. Taking into account the contents of the 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 Central Bureau of Investigation versus 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. The following view expressed in Central Bureau of Investigation versus K. Narayana Rao (supra) will be appropriate to be quoted: 4
“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 of 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.” 5
6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation versus K. Narayana Rao (supra), we are of the view that the High Court was plainly wrong in refusing to interdict the proceedings against the appellants. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and quash the proceedings in G.R. NO.710 of 206 arising out of Agiaon (G) P.S. Case No.20 of 2006 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara insofar as the two appellants Surendra Nath Pandey and Suresh Prasad are concerned.
7. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI AUGUST 03, 2015