Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses the cheating case against an SBI empaneled advocate, stating there was no active involvement between him and the other accused who defrauded the bank.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a cheating case against a lawyer associated with the State Bank of India. The court found no evidence that he was involved with the other accused who defrauded the bank. The lawyer filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to dismiss charges under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, noted that the petitioner is currently 74 years old and did not act negligently to cause any financial harm to the bank.
Advocate Anshul Tiwari represented the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur represented the bank. The petitioner, a Senior Advocate with over 38 years of experience at the District & Session Court in Bemetara, was wrongfully accused simply because he issued a non-encumbrance certificate for the borrower’s land, confirming it was free of any claims. An FIR was filed in 2018, alleging that the main accused, Hariram Chandrakar, fraudulently obtained a loan under the Kisan Credit Card scheme by mortgaging his agricultural land. It was claimed that Chandrakar applied for the loan and needed to prove that the land was free from any encumbrances to secure the loan.
The main accused was said to have received a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs. The petitioner, an approved Advocate for SBI, issued a non-encumbrance certificate, confirming that the borrower had a clear and marketable title to the property without any claims against it. It was also claimed that the borrower did not repay the loan and that investigations revealed he had no land in village Giddhawa, using forged documents. Tiwari, representing the petitioner, noted that a charge sheet was filed against both the borrower and the Branch Manager, with a supplementary charge sheet later filed against the petitioner. The case of CBI, Hyderabad 4 v. K. Narayana Rao was cited, stating that an Advocate’s liability arises only if they actively participated in a scheme to defraud the Bank.
After reviewing the evidence, the Bench concluded that the petitioner only provided a search report and found no proof of collusion between him and the other accused who defrauded the Bank. The Bench noted that the petitioner is still retained by the Bank as their panel Advocate, suggesting that if he were negligent or untrustworthy, he would have been removed. The K. Narayana Rao case was referenced again, emphasizing that a lawyer cannot be criminally charged simply for giving an opinion that may not be accepted, especially without solid evidence of involvement in a conspiracy.
The Bench also pointed out that the petitioner’s name appeared in the supplementary charge sheet, even though he was not mentioned in the FIR. The Court stated, “Since the prosecution has not proven that the petitioner actively participated in causing any loss to the respondent-Bank, we believe that the trial Court’s decision to frame charges against the petitioner and the rejection of the revision petition on 20.01.2021 should be overturned for the petitioner, especially considering the Apex Court’s ruling in K. Narayana Rao (supra).” Therefore, the Bench granted the petition and dismissed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Cause Title: Ramkinkar Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh [Neutral Citation- 2024:CGHC:44444-DB] Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Anshul Tiwari
Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur & Advocate P.R.Patankar
